Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that >> specifying that this is the default or not is really useful. If the >> configuration was set to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no >> message will appear. > > I'm not sure either, and as it's not the topic of this particular patch, > I'd like to delegate the decision on the issue. It is very much spot on the topic of simplifying and clarifying the code to unify these remaining two messages into a single one. And involving the --interactive that allows users a chance to rethink and refrain from removing some to the equation would also be worth doing in the same topic, even though it might not fit your immediate agenda of crusade against --dry-run.
