[PATCH 4 of 4] mq: introduce mq.check setting

[Patrick Mézard]

Le 13/05/12 10:32, Didly a écrit :
> On May 13, 2012 10:27 AM, "Patrick Mézard" <patrick at mezard.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Le 13/05/12 02:00, Didly a écrit :
>>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Faheem Mitha <faheem at email.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 16:48:54 +0200, Patrick Mézard <pmezard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What other people think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Idan: --disjoint
>>>>> Me: --keep-changes or --keep
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I like --disjoint. It is a more precise description of what is
>>>> happening. Also, there is an open bug about this, reported by me. I
>>>> think Idan tried to fix this once, but it didn't make it.
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, how about --local-changes?
>>>>
>>>>                                                     Regards, Faheem
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be even better to have --keep-local-changes, or its
>>> shorter version, --keep? :-)
>>
>> Unfortunately, --keep is already used by qdeleted and qfold to say
> "preserve the patch files". qfold may be a candidate for a --check option
> (djc reported a bug where he wanted a --force so...).
>>
>> I will probably go for --keep-changes then.
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Mézard
> 
> That's even more explicit which is great. Will it still have a short
> version? I'd so, which will it be?

Oh right, I did not consider that. Do we need a short option if we have a global setting?

--
Patrick Mézard