From: "SZEDER Gábor" <szeder@ira•uka.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org, Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily•org>,
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha•warpmail.net>,
wharms@bfs•de
Subject: Re: help: bisect single file from repos
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:28:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091209012855.GA3208@neumann> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vein5e2lc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:35:11AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> But I wonder if there is
> something we _could_ have done better in the documentation area to avoid
> this from the beginning, iow, make it easier to "learn how things work
> before using"? I think there is a lesson to be learned by us in here, and
> I'd like to hear comments and improvement suggestions, especially from
> "usability" and "friendly to new people" advocates.
when a git command accepts a commit as command line option, the
documentation usually refers to the "Specifying revisions" section of
'git rev-parse's docs for "a more complete list of ways to spell
commits"[1]. Even the docs of porcelain commands and the user manual
do that. But 'git rev-parse' is plumbing, and we actively advertise
that avarage users don't really need to know about plumbing at all.
While new to git I repeatedly encountered this reference to 'git
rev-parse' all over the porcelain manpages, and it was a real burden
for me back then. I was like "but I don't want to know about all the
glory details, just give me a short summary".
I think the user should not refer to plumbing manpages to be able to
use porcelain commands. Therefore, the manpage of every command
accepting a commit option need to have a section about specifying
these commits. This section doesn't need to be as detailed as 'git
rev-parse'; perhaps we don't need to discuss the ^{} notation there.
Also, the precedence in case of an ambiguous symbolic ref name should
be described without reference to the internal $GIT_DIR/refs/
directory structure.
Furthermore, some manpages use the term "<commit>", while others
"<committish>" or "<rev>". The same term should be used everywhere.
Best,
Gábor
[1] - 'git cherry-pick' doc says the following:
<commit>
Commit to cherry-pick. For a more complete list of ways to spell
commits, see the "SPECIFYING REVISIONS" section in git-rev-parse(1).
What? "A _more_ complete list"!? Well, it's not very hard to be more
complete than this, there is not a single way described here (;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-09 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-07 12:59 help: bisect single file from repos walter harms
2009-12-07 15:08 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-12-07 16:05 ` walter harms
2009-12-08 8:17 ` Christian Couder
2009-12-08 13:41 ` walter harms
2009-12-08 18:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-12-09 1:28 ` SZEDER Gábor [this message]
2009-12-09 8:27 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-12-09 9:45 ` SZEDER Gábor
2009-12-09 12:12 ` walter harms
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091209012855.GA3208@neumann \
--to=szeder@ira$(echo .)uka.de \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily$(echo .)org \
--cc=git@drmicha$(echo .)warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=wharms@bfs$(echo .)de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox