[PATCH 3 of 3 v4] help: mark boolean flags with [?] and explain that they can be negated (RFC)
Martin von Zweigbergk
martinvonz at google.com
Sat Sep 17 17:56:43 EDT 2016
How about --[no-]commit?
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 14:26 <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 2016, at 02:58, Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:15:03 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> # HG changeset patch
> >> # User Augie Fackler <augie at google.com>
> >> # Date 1473821892 14400
> >> # Tue Sep 13 22:58:12 2016 -0400
> >> # Node ID bc6e18d8c469a1671c2d6725da5771fed3972323
> >> # Parent aea18fa52d954e234fdfd1d24d3f37f0cb03dc60
> >> help: mark boolean flags with [?] and explain that they can be negated
> >> This is an RFC because I'm still not crazy about how this is
> >> documented - perhaps we should add some text discussing what it means
> >> for a flag to be a boolean flag and be negatable?
> > I'm not opposed to this change, but it appears we aren't sure how this
> > be documented yet. So I don't take this patch for now.
> I'm pretty comfortable with the [?] marking the boolean flags, but I do
> think we need some further cogitation on how to help users learn the
> `--no-whatever` syntax for negating them. I don't have a good suggestion
> pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / سَلاَم / 平和
> Kevin R. Bullock
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel