That is a fair point. If the intention is just to let users hide branches, perhaps the semantic should just be "hide". On the other hand people may want to categorize them into under review, abandoned, etc. Perhaps it would be hard to have hardcoded behavior for those categories. <div class="gmail_quote">On May 6, 2011 11:15 AM, "Matthew D. Fuller" <<a href="mailto:fullermd@over-yonder.net">fullermd@over-yonder.net</a>> wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 07:26:00AM +0200 I heard the voice of > vila, and lo! it spake thus: >> >>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <<a href="mailto:jelmer@samba.org">jelmer@samba.org</a>> writes: >> >> Is there any interest out there for standardizing on the option >> >> "branch_status" as a way of marking the state of a branch? >> >> I'm a bit hesitant to share the same option with foreigners ;) >> >> It seems a bit risky to do that without a clear idea about everybody >> needs before hand so changes will occur and we'll run in >> compatibility hells. > > I'm more than hesitant; I think it's a terrible idea. Having an > option with a pile of possible values, used by various independent > tools that each assign their own implicit meanings to {some,all} of > the options is the sort of thing you come up with after intensive > large-scale research into the next step when breaking people on the > wheel goes out of fashion. > > If we want an option for {include in all listings, include only when > explicitly asking for everything, deny existence of unless > specifically asked for by name}, let's do that, not make it an > implicit side effect of some other list of things... > > > -- > Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | <a href="mailto:fullermd@over-yonder.net">fullermd@over-yonder.net</a> > Systems/Network Administrator | <a href="http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/">http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/</a> > On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. > </div>