Re: [PATCH] ls-tree: fix --no-full-name
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 21, 2023, 14:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq351hz5xp.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <a6326aaa-4f05-4d00-8906-2f50ea8e1e7a@web.de>
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Overall I get the impression that having the negative form enabled by > default was not a good idea. For boolean options it makes sense, for > options with arguments perhaps as well, but for OPT_SET_INT we would > have less confusion if the negated form was opt-in. > > To make it easier discoverable we could let the short help include > the optional "no-" part, which would look like this: > > usage: git ls-tree [<options>] <tree-ish> [<path>...] > > -d only show trees > -r recurse into subtrees > -t show trees when recursing > -z terminate entries with NUL byte > -l, --long include object size > --name-only list only filenames > --name-status list only filenames > --object-only list only objects > --[no-]full-name use full path names > --[no-]full-tree list entire tree; not just current directory (implies --full-name) > --format <format> format to use for the output > --[no-]abbrev[=<n>] use <n> digits to display object names > > Thoughts?
I like the "optional no- accepted" markings, but I suspect there may be quite a lot of fallouts.