From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 19:48:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls-tree: fix --no-full-name
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:
> 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.