From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932681AbbJNRiX (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:38:23 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0213.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.213]:46649 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932162AbbJNRiW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:38:22 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1981:2194:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6119:6261:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13095:13161:13229:13311:13357:21080:21094,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: gold87_2bb6d71e68d59 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2027 Message-ID: <1444844299.2718.26.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] get_maintainer: add --no-foo options to --help From: Joe Perches To: Brian Norris Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:38:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20151014173302.GA108923@google.com> References: <1440022180-71428-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <20151014171035.GA109800@google.com> <1444842931.2718.21.camel@perches.com> <20151014173302.GA108923@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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' 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 ... $