[RFC] I want to disable submit_branch on my computer for all branches. How can I do that?

[vila]

>>>>> Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

    > On 11-05-13 12:13 PM, vila wrote:
    >>>>>>> Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
    >> 
    >> > On 11-05-13 04:00 AM, vila wrote:
    >> >> But this is precisely what Alexander (and others including me) is
    >> >> complaining about (and I don't understand the use case it's addressing,
    >> >> if the user is explicit about his desire (--no-remember specified last),
    >> >> we should respect it).
    >> 
    >> > We should definitely respect the user's desire, but the "--no-" options
    >> > exist to force bzr to give use the default behaviour.
    >> 
    >> Hmm, that's part of the discussion I think.

    > Well, I did implement them, and that's the reason I remember
    > having at the time.  So I think I can say why they exist.

Nobody said otherwise.

Yet, this behavior is causing problems to some users.

    >> To me, -no applies to a boolean and is meant to reverse it. The point
    >> here is that --remember as it is implemented is not related to the fact
    >> that the setting is remembered if it doesn't exist.

    > So, I wonder if this discussion would be significantly different
    > if the option had been named --force-remember rather than
    > remember.  The inverse would be --no-force-remember, which would
    > not imply that remembering was forbidden.

I'm not arguing about the option name.

There are two booleans involved here:
- the --remember option,
- the existence of the setting

Giving two options to the user when a single is enough is *not* a good
UI if we can cover all the use cases with a single one.

The actual combination doesn't allow the user to no set
submit_branch. 

Martin said:

    > The problem is that we have three reasonable settings:
    > 1 - don't remember it
    > 2 - remember it if it's not set, otherwise don't (current default)
    > 3 - remember it unconditionally (current --remember)
    > 
    > Making --no-remember take you back to #2 would be consistent with the
    > current option, but also probably not what people normally want.  I
    > think the default, and (therefore) the behaviour of --no-remember
    > ought to be #1.

I think that's a good summary of how we want to fix the issue,

          Vincent