[Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz, --full option, revision lists: What's the best behavior?

[Matthieu Moy]

Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> writes:

> The issue with the full form is it harms readability for interactive
> users. I would seriously consider to use conditional defaults to improve
> readability without introducing ambiguity, and have both --full and
> --no-full options in one-version-plus commands. 

Up to now, the policy for baz and tla is to make something
not-too-configurable client, and let front-ends and shell wrappers
take care of default options. But as long as we keep the unambiguous
--full and --no-full, it doesn't harm to provide a configurable
default.

> But I may accept any client behaviour, as long as it does not remove
> functionality.

So, "-1" for my proposal to simply remove the --full.

-- 
Matthieu