Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:59 -0500, Kevin Bullock wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:07, Augie Fackler wrote: > > Should I mail a v6? How do people feel about this particular patch, commit > > message aside? > > I'd say it's the cleanest of the options presented thus far. I'm

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:07, Augie Fackler wrote: > > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:36, Kevin Bullock >> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler wrote: >>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:36, Kevin Bullock > wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler wrote: >> >>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David >>> wrote: >>> which avoid the visual noise

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David >> wrote: >> >>> which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is >>> unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

On 09/28/2016 03:32 PM, Augie Fackler wrote: On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David > wrote: which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

On 09/27/2016 11:55 PM, Augie Fackler wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Augie Fackler # Date 1473821892 14400 # Tue Sep 13 22:58:12 2016 -0400 # Node ID 7f6af551cbc5394441f62383e5ced5084f59bff5 # Parent e83f89d3b1f733d0ee5f23f6a2293279a17fbbfb help: mark boolean flags