Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] get_maintainer: add --no-foo options to --help | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:38:19 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:33 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > + akpm > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:15:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:10 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > Ping? Should I resend? > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about this. > > > > It seems the [no] blocks make the generic options more > > difficult to read. > > The '[no]' formatting is similar to how some (but not all) man pages do > this. If it is too difficult, I'm open to something else. Just a note > somewhere that all boolean options have equivalent '--no<foo>' options? > > BTW, one thing I didn't note in the commit message is that this is > important because some options are already *on* by default, and so it is > only sensible to use the --no version, which isn't even documented. > Particularly, options like --norolestats.
Maybe using something like gcc's documentation of options that have negative forms might be better.
$ man gcc ... Most of these have both positive and negative forms; the negative form of -ffoo is -fno-foo ... $
| |