From: René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:06:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] parse-options: disallow --no-no-sth
Message-ID: <4F4E6912.7060204@lsrfire.ath.cx>
In-Reply-To: <7vlinmy80x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Am 28.02.2012 22:15, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> René Scharfe<rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>  writes:
>
>> Now that options whose definition starts with "no-" can be negated
>> by removing said "no-", there is no need anymore to allow them to
>> be negated by adding a second "no-", which just looks silly.
>
> Thanks.  But accepting them silently and do what the user would have
> expected, especially if we do not advertise it, would not hurt anybody,
> no?

Yes, that's why I didn't include this fourth patch from the beginning. 
However, I understood your comment "Among the existing 13 that you
listed, I do not think there is any that tempts any existing user to ask
for negation with "--no-no-foo" form, so I think we should be Ok." to 
mean that nobody uses the double-no form of the existing negative 
options anyway, and therefore we should disallow it.

Please drop this extra patch if I misunderstood you, in order to keep 
backward compatibility.

René