On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:55:56AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > In fact, that kind of makes me wonder if this "type" list should not > exist at all. If we instead grouped the options and said "these are the > type options", then we'd only need one list. > > I'm OK to punt on that for now, though, in the interest of not holding > up this patch series. I do think we should say something like: > > Each type can be specified with the matching command-line option > (e.g., `--bool`, `--int`, etc); see <<OPTIONS>> below.
I punted on this for now, since rebasing on tb/config-type-specifier-option makes this commit a no-op. Thanks, Taylor
