Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue with the full form is it harms readability for interactive > users. I would seriously consider to use conditional defaults to improve > readability without introducing ambiguity, and have both --full and > --no-full options in one-version-plus commands.
Up to now, the policy for baz and tla is to make something not-too-configurable client, and let front-ends and shell wrappers take care of default options. But as long as we keep the unambiguous --full and --no-full, it doesn't harm to provide a configurable default. > But I may accept any client behaviour, as long as it does not remove > functionality. So, "-1" for my proposal to simply remove the --full. -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
