Re: [PATCH] format-patch: allow --rfc to optionally take a value, like --rfc=WIP

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>>> @@ -1932,7 +1944,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char 
>>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>>>   			    N_("mark the series as Nth re-roll")),
>>>   		OPT_INTEGER(0, "filename-max-length", &fmt_patch_name_max,
>>>   			    N_("max length of output filename")),
>>> -		OPT_BOOL(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("use [RFC PATCH] instead of 
>>> [PATCH]")),
>>> +		OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("extra"),
>>> +			       N_("add <extra> (default 'RFC') before 'PATCH'"),
>>> +			       PARSE_OPT_NONEG|PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, rfc_callback),
>> 
>> This is a change in behavior as it looks like we previously accepted
>> "--no-rfc" is that deliberate?
> 
> I just matched the subject-prefix without thinking.  Will fix.
> 
> Here is what I plan to squash in, but we are about to enter the
> pre-release stabilization period, so the progress on this new
> feature will have to slow down.