Re: [PATCH] ls-tree: fix --no-full-name
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 4, 2023, 19:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a9d51bb4-2897-c4ca-f8b3-85f50902b041@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqbkfm3gne.fsf@gitster.g>
On 04/08/2023 17:40, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> A bit more verbose still: Document the negative form on its own line
>>> with a generated description -- requires no new syntax:
>>>
>>> -v, --invert-match show non-matching lines
>>> --no-invert-match opposite of --invert-match, default
>>> -I, --no-index find in contents not managed by git
>>> --index opposite of --no-index, default
>>
>> I would expect _("opposite of %s, default") is acceptable by l10n
>> folks, and assuming it is, the above would be a good approach.
>
> I was seeing what is likely to be in the -rc1 that will happen in
> next week, and noticed that this discussion is left unconcluded. I
> am tempted to declare that the latest iteration that shows the
> negation of "--no-foo" as "--[no-]no-foo" is "good enough" for now,
> and leave the above improvement as one potential future direction.While it could certainly be improved in the future I think "--[no-]no-foo" is probably good enough. I definitely prefer it over "--[[no-]no]-foo"
Best Wishes
Phillip
> Objections? Otherwise the 5-patch series will be in 'next'. > > Thanks.