From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:11:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] fsmonitor: add documentation for the fsmonitor extension.
Message-ID: <CAN0heSoSLJox6xzVwOibjgaa7tj=L3Pm+0XxVr6LYBp3+t1x6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9cd0c22e-d044-b059-39d5-40b401b18b3e@gmail.com>

On 20 September 2017 at 19:02, Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +--[no-]fsmonitor-valid::
>>> +       When one of these flags is specified, the object name recorded
>>> +       for the paths are not updated. Instead, these options
>>> +       set and unset the "fsmonitor valid" bit for the paths. See
>>> +       section "File System Monitor" below for more information.
>>> +
>>
>>
>> So --no-foo does not undo --foo, but there are three values: --foo,
>> --no-foo and <nothing/default>. I find that unintuitive, but maybe it's
>> just me. Maybe there are other such options in the codebase already.
>
>
> I understand the unintuitive comment but the other such options in the code
> base are just above the fsmonitor options as it is modeled on how
> 'assume-unchanged' and 'skip-worktree' work.  Consistency is certainly helps
> the intuitiveness as once you have learned the model, it applies in other
> places.
>
[...]
>
> For better and for worse, I choose to be consistent with how the options
> work (especially the untracked-cache option immediately above).  This is one
> weakness of reviewing patches via email - you don't see the patch in context
> with everything around it.
>
[...]
>
> I'm going to sound like a broken record here. :) The description favored
> consistency with the untracked cache feature immediate above this entry.  It
> is literally a copy/paste/edit.

Oh. Well, that's what I get for "reviewing" by e-mail. You are indeed
following the current style very well! Sorry for the noise.

Martin