From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Vajna Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2009, #05; Tue, 17) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:47:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20090318074734.GI3817@genesis.frugalware.org> References: <7vbprzo0si.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090318055222.GA17128@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H88uUF932U8Oj0a6" Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 18 08:49:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LjqWb-0001vr-WD for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:49:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751277AbZCRHrl (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:47:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751180AbZCRHrl (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:47:41 -0400 Received: from virgo.iok.hu ([212.40.97.103]:45703 "EHLO virgo.iok.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751250AbZCRHrk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:47:40 -0400 Received: from kag.elte.hu (kag.elte.hu [157.181.177.1]) by virgo.iok.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE808580C8; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:47:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from genesis.frugalware.org (frugalware.elte.hu [157.181.177.34]) by kag.elte.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92A644783; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:47:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by genesis.frugalware.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 63425153C003; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:47:34 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090318055222.GA17128@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --H88uUF932U8Oj0a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:52:22AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I am inclined to leave it as-is. The other sane option would be > converting it to use NONEG, as Miklos suggested. >=20 > Doing it right would probably mean adding a "this option is the opposite > of what we would usually do" flag to parse-options which would display > the option as "no-