Re: [PATCH] t9001: use older Getopt::Long boolean prefix '--no' rather than '--no-'

> On Feb 1, 2015, at 17:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> "Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> use 5.008;
>>>
>>> So either that needs to change or the code should properly deal with
>>> the version of Getopt::Long that comes with 5.8.0.
>>>
>>> Since it's really not very difficult or invasive to add support for
>>> the no- variants, here's a patch to do so:
>>
>> Doesn't that approach add "what does --no-no-chain-rely-to even
>> mean?" confusion to the resulting system?  If that is not the case,
>> then I am all for it, but otherwise, let's not.
>
> No.  You have to append the '!' to get the automagic no prefix
> alternative(s), so while 'chain-reply-to!' means support chain-reply- 
> to, nochain-reply-to and (if you have a new enough Getopt::Long) no- 
> chain-reply-to, just using 'no-chain-reply-to' without the trailing
> !' means that nono-chain-reply-to and no-no-chain-reply-to remain
> invalid options that will generate an error.