On 20 September 2017 at 19:02, Ben Peart <peart...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> +--[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
