Re: [PATCH] rebase: add `--update-refs=interactive`

[Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx@intelfx.name>]

On 2025-02-11 at 08:50 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx@intelfx.name> writes:
> 
> > > >  --update-refs::
> > > >  --no-update-refs::
> > > > +--update-refs=interactive::
> > > 
> > > Based on `git grep -e '--.*\[=' Documentation/git-*.txt`, I think this
> > > should be more like
> > > 
> > >     --update-refs[=interactive]::
> > >     --no-update-refs::
> > > 
> > > But maybe that unintentionally suggests that `=interactive` is the default?
> > 
> > Perhaps --update-refs[=(yes|no|interactive)] then? Or is that too
> > verbose?
> 
> If `--update-refs` does take values that the git_parse_maybe_bool()
> helper parses as a Boolean value, I do not think the above is
> verbose at all.  Rather, it is a disservice to the users if the
> documentation does not mention yes/no in such a case.  I'd say
> listing other Boolean synonyms like yes/true/on/no/false/off is
> too verbose, though ;-).
> 
> > Anyway, I don't have a preference, I'll just do what I'm told
> 
> That is not quite in line with how we'd like to operate.
> 
> It is your itch.  Others may give suggestions to help you polish it,
> but ultimately, we would not want to accept a patch that the author
> does not agree with.

Of course, I care about the patch and the feature; what I wanted to say
is that I do not care (comparatively) about the formatting of the help
text: I couldn't figure it out on my own, so whatever you tell me is
the proper way of formatting it, I'll do.

-- 
Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /