Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that
>>>> specifying that this is the default or not is really useful. If the
>>>> configuration was set to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no
>>>> message will appear.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure either, and as it's not the topic of this particular patch,
>>> I'd like to delegate the decision on the issue.
>>
>> It is very much spot on the topic of simplifying and clarifying the
>> code to unify these remaining two messages into a single one.
>
> I'm inclined to be more against merging than for it, as for me it'd be
> confusing to be told that a configuration variable is set to true when I
> didn't set it, nor there is any way to figure where it is set, because
> in fact it isn't, and it's rather the default that is in use.
>
> Overall, to me the messages are fine as they are (except -n that doesn't
> belong there), I don't see compelling reason to hide information from
> the user, and thus I won't propose patch that gets rid of one of them.

Nevertheless, as others are in favor of unification, I've merged these
two messages in the v2 version of the patch, which see.

Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov