On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:52:22AM -0400, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am inclined to leave it as-is. The other sane option would be > converting it to use NONEG, as Miklos suggested. > > Doing it right would probably mean adding a "this option is the opposite > of what we would usually do" flag to parse-options which would display > the option as "no-<option>" in the usage, and would reverse clearing and > setting the bit (i.e., --empty-directory would clear the HIDE_DIRECTORY > bit and --no-empty-directory would set it). But I don't think it is > worth the work to add a negatable version of an option that has never > existed before and which nobody has requested to use. ACK, I'm fine with the current shape of the topic branch. I did not think about the user confusion regarding usage when I suggested NONEG.
Attachment:
pgpOWEgGGbGbz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
