From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BB120958 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932136AbdCWVb4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51900 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751496AbdCWVbz (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:55 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E8692CD; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=KfIpNQcvkamR tmHE+QV8XTfqBHo=; b=rM+TaR02ZRaCJVqetTRGS0lRtFpI193n5yqKkMSZ+gSx ndQe/SCM4ZTXs8jSkckSEPmdXv7yp8ZEPj7gCqzvDRkmagUigRfvFQ8SgOHmRJpk 09oWNJ3Ki44kblA3/Sgj5BYNXetkjSXqbMRJE8rLppqAOsK/17rDgF2TNnO5GaI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=V4lQFB FoAspCIPxQJpacE+FzsCzjR+bGq8MIHP8Ol4c6It/6HEvUHcf52/zkBKti2y3Eep Ja9ErRZoauyz3t9RyH/Kg1hBik/AMbF80v8xCpfaHOc68twJVw1IF3e6nDk7PTPn 2mqeCi6WEWFgYrjJqx5mrAjPvuijpPKVsrqcg= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4555692CB; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C552692C9; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch doc: Change `git branch ` to use `` References: <20170323120326.19051-1-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:31:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:07:55 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 21F3EB0A-1010-11E7-B4F7-97B1B46B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >>> --list:: >>> - Activate the list mode. `git branch ` would try to cre= ate a branch, >>> + Activate the list mode. `git branch ` would try to = create a branch, >>> use `git branch --list ` to list matching branches. >> >> This makes the description more correct. >> >> I am not sure if it makes that much sense to have that sentence here >> in the first place (after all, it is describing a behaviour of a >> mode that is *not* the list mode), but I guess that it may be a >> common mistake to forget to specify "-l" while asking for branches >> that match the pattern? If we were writing this today from scratch, >> I would perhaps write something entirely different, e.g. > > I'm just doing s/pattern/branchname/ on the existing documentation. If > you'd like to entirely reword this to make that unnecessary that > sounds good, but makes sense that you then submit that patch & just > drop this one, rather than me copy/pasting your proposal, sending that > as my own patch etc... That is sensible. I've already queued yours as-is a few hours ago, and the remainder of this message is in preparation for a follow-up patch that is a separate topic. >> --list:: >> List branches. With optional ... at the >> end of the command line, list only the branches that >> match any of the given patterns. Do not forget '-l' >> and say "git branch ", as it will instead >> try to create a new branch whose name is , >> which is a common mistake. > > I like the old one better. It has 3 actual command examples you can > readily see. Having the _wrong_ example `git branch ` that is readily available for cutting and pasting is the worst of the three reasons why I think the current text is bad (the other two being "it does not even help in explaining the `--list` option" and "The argument to the other mode is not but is "). I can go without "Do not forget ..." and everything that follows, though, and if we are going to do so, then --list:: List branches. With optional ..., e.g. `git branch --list 'maint-*`, list only the branches that match the pattern(s). would be fine. I am not opposed to having an visually distinctive example--I just do not want to have one that is wrong without clearly marking it as such.