On 07/01/2016 03:29 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> The patch itself looks OK, but I think that this option is a bad idea
> and design, and that the extra complexity isn't warranted. I know
> users have asked for something similar several times, but thankfully
> the users aren't the developers.
Hi,
thanks for your continuous work, just an implementation detail, it may be
possible to avoid a new option reusing the current autounmask one?
instead of
--autounmask [ y | n ]
--autounmask-only [ y | n ]
--autounmask-write [ y | n ]
--autounmask-continue [ y | n ]
something like:
