Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] fsmonitor: add documentation for the fsmonitor extension.

On 20 September 2017 at 19:02, Ben Peart [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+--[no-]fsmonitor-valid::
+       When one of these flags is specified, the object name recorded
+       for the paths are not updated. Instead, these options
+       set and unset the "fsmonitor valid" bit for the paths. See
+       section "File System Monitor" below for more information.
+

So --no-foo does not undo --foo, but there are three values: --foo,
--no-foo and <nothing/default>. I find that unintuitive, but maybe it's
just me. Maybe there are other such options in the codebase already.

I understand the unintuitive comment but the other such options in the code
base are just above the fsmonitor options as it is modeled on how
'assume-unchanged' and 'skip-worktree' work.  Consistency is certainly helps
the intuitiveness as once you have learned the model, it applies in other
places.

[...]

For better and for worse, I choose to be consistent with how the options
work (especially the untracked-cache option immediately above).  This is one
weakness of reviewing patches via email - you don't see the patch in context
with everything around it.

[...]

I'm going to sound like a broken record here. :) The description favored
consistency with the untracked cache feature immediate above this entry.  It
is literally a copy/paste/edit.

Oh. Well, that's what I get for "reviewing" by e-mail. You are indeed
following the current style very well! Sorry for the noise.

Martin