Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] 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.
--no-verify)
OK_TO_SKIP_PRE_REBASE=yes
;;
--no-verify exists, so
- --verify)
- ;;
--verify exists too.
I think a better change would be to add a comment like
--verify)
# no-op, exists because --no-verify exists too.
;;
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Thomas Rast [off-list ref] wrote:
Matthieu Moy wrote:
quoted
Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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.
[...]
quoted
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?
Yes. But because it did not work like that, it was not documented and it
was only accepted by interactive rebase, I thought it was best to just
remove it.
However, I do understand Matthieu's point about having a '--whatever'
option for every '--no-whatever' option. So, if that is the general
opinion, I wouldn't mind adding the flag to non-interactive rebase as
well. As long as it is consistent, it would simplify things for the user
(and, which is more important to me right now :-), for me while
refactoring this code.)
/Martin