> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:10:22AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > People interested may want to try the attached single-liner patch to > > see how the output from _ALL_ commands that use parse-options API > > looks when given "-h". It could be that the result may not be too > > bad. > > The output is less ugly than I expected, but still a bit cluttered IMHO. > I was surprised that the column-adjustment did not need tweaked, but the code > correctly increments "pos" from the return value of fprintf, which just works. > > Looking at the output for --ff, though: > > --[no-]ff allow fast-forward (default) > > I do not think it's improving the situation nearly as much as if we made the > primary option "--no-ff" with a NONEG flga, and then added back in a HIDDEN > "--ff". I thought we had done that in other cases, but I can't seem to find > any. But it would make "--no-ff" the primary form, which makes sense, as > "--ff" is already the default. > > Another option would be to teach parse-options to somehow treat the negated > form as primary in the help text. That's a bit more code, but might be usable > in other places. > > -Peff >
What about leaving the help as is, but adding a sentence at the end (or beginning?) like: "The following options may be negated by adding 'no-' after the double dashes"? This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
