[PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

[Kevin Bullock]

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:07, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:36, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
>>>>> unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
>>>>> similar documentation venues.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing. What is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to seeing in man pages?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The current version -> the version in v5
>>> 
>>> has unfortunate visual clutter, but also matches what I'm used to seeing in man pages.
>>> 
>>> I'll grant you it's an unusual construction though. Perhaps
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> which avoid the unfortunate visual noise in this patch. In this version's favor, it's consistent with what I'm used to seeing in man pages and similar documentation venues.
>>> 
>>> is clearer?
>> 
>> Thank you, yes, this is clear now. I also had trouble parsing the original.
> 
> Should I mail a v6? How do people feel about this particular patch, commit message aside?

I'd say it's the cleanest of the options presented thus far. I'm in favor.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock