From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: remove undocumented '--verify' flag Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:14:15 +0100 Message-ID: <201011221414.15982.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <1290408504-14639-1-git-send-email-martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin von Zweigbergk , , Nanako Shiraishi , Junio C Hamano To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 22 14:20:36 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKWJv-000552-UP for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:20:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755059Ab0KVNUb (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:20:31 -0500 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:29131 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754093Ab0KVNUa (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:20:30 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 373 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:20:30 EST Received: from CAS10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:13:58 +0100 Received: from pctrast.inf.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by cas10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:14:16 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-93-desktop; KDE/4.5.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Matthieu Moy wrote: > Martin von Zweigbergk writes: > > > Remove the undocumented and unused '--verify' flag from interactive > > rebase. > > I don't think this change is good. If a command has a --no-whatever > flag, one expects the --whatever flag to exist too, even if it's a > no-op. [...] > I think a better change would be to add a comment like > > --verify) > # no-op, exists because --no-verify exists too. Shouldn't that be OK_TO_SKIP_PRE_REBASE= instead, so that it undoes the effect of an earlier --no-verify? > ;; -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch