Re: [PATCH 8 of 8 v2] help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-06 Thread Pierre-Yves David
On 08/31/2016 07:10 PM, Augie Fackler wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 16:16 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Augie Fackler # Date 147258 14400 # Tue Aug 30 15:14:04 2016

Re: [PATCH 8 of 8 v2] help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-01 Thread Matt Mackall
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:10 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 16:16 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > > > > > > # HG changeset patch > > > # User Augie Fackler > > > # Date

Re: [PATCH 8 of 8 v2] help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-08-31 Thread timeless
> options ([+] can be repeated, [?] are flags): This is closer to how I was envisioning it. > Having --no-noninteractive seems really sad. We could make --noninteractive > hidden and then advertise --no-interactive as the long version. Agreed > Also, I don't think --no-no-backup is a good

Re: [PATCH 8 of 8 v2] help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-08-30 Thread timeless
In principle you shouldn't use multi occur to guard this. if multioccur: -header += (_(" ([+] can be repeated)")) +m = _( +" ([+] can be repeated, flags marked ^ can be negated with --no-)") +header += (m) It's too hard for me you write the correct logic

[PATCH 8 of 8 v2] help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-08-30 Thread Augie Fackler
# HG changeset patch # User Augie Fackler # Date 147258 14400 # Tue Aug 30 15:14:04 2016 -0400 # Node ID 5efc13a760938ff5fd8e4553dd8e06d06b98025b # Parent fd68fb86c29873eb32c4a2bd28f7ac0abe3dc172 help: mark boolean flags with a ^ and explain that they can be negated