Re: [PATCH 1/2] get_maintainer: add --no-foo options to --help

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:33 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> + akpm
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:15:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:10 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Ping? Should I resend?
> > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion about this.
> > 
> > It seems the [no] blocks make the generic options more
> > difficult to read.
> 
> The '[no]' formatting is similar to how some (but not all) man pages do
> this. If it is too difficult, I'm open to something else. Just a note
> somewhere that all boolean options have equivalent '--no<foo>' options?
> 
> BTW, one thing I didn't note in the commit message is that this is
> important because some options are already *on* by default, and so it is
> only sensible to use the --no version, which isn't even documented.
> Particularly, options like --norolestats.

Maybe using something like gcc's documentation of options
that have negative forms might be better.

$ man gcc
...
Most of these have both positive and negative forms;
the negative form of -ffoo is -fno-foo
...
$