Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] document new flags

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 01:19:53 -0700 (PDT)

Jeff Epler <[email-masked]> writes:

> From: Jeff Epler <[email-masked]>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Epler <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-cherry.txt |   14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Why split this patch in two? It is better to have new feature and
documentation together, I think.
 
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
> index 7deefda..100ed69 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ git-cherry - Find commits not merged upstream
>  
>  SYNOPSIS
>  --------
> -'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]
> +'git cherry' [-v] [-a|-#] [-r] [-d|-D] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]
>  
>  DESCRIPTION
>  -----------
> @@ -49,6 +49,18 @@ OPTIONS
>  -v::
>  	Verbose.
>  
> +-a|-#::
> +	Abbreviate commit ids to the given number of characters, or 7 for -a
> +

Why invent new convention, instead of using -<n> like git-log?
Why do not use --abbrev or --abbrev-commit? -<n> is used elsewhere
to limit number of commits...

> +-r::
> +	Swap <upstream> and <head>

Why not -R like in git-diff?

> +
> +-d::
> +	Only show commits that don't exist in upstream ("+" lines)
> +
> +-D::
> +	Only show commits that do exist in upstream ("-" lines)
> +

I'm not sure if -d/-D is the best name of this short option...

>  <upstream>::
>  	Upstream branch to compare against.
>  	Defaults to the first tracked remote branch, if available.
> -- 
> 1.5.4.3
> 

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git