From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] push: describe --porcelain just like commit and status Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:42:31 +0100 Message-ID: <201102142042.31887.j6t@kdbg.org> References: <3b6a87b585eea1722bd31bc9cf5ba2c80e37aefa.1297695910.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 14 20:42:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pp4Ju-0002s7-IN for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:42:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751934Ab1BNTmg (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:42:36 -0500 Received: from bsmtp5.bon.at ([195.3.86.187]:5512 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153Ab1BNTmf (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:42:35 -0500 Received: from dx.sixt.local (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D8CA7EBD; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:41:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.sixt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B6A19F5AF; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:42:32 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 In-Reply-To: <3b6a87b585eea1722bd31bc9cf5ba2c80e37aefa.1297695910.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Montag, 14. Februar 2011, Michael J Gruber wrote: > - OPT_BIT( 0, "porcelain", &flags, "machine-readable output",... TRANSPORT_PUSH_PORCELAIN), > + OPT_BIT( 0, "porcelain", &flags, "show porcelain output format",... IMO, this is a step in the wrong direction. It is not at all clear that "--porcelain" means "output _for_ porcelain"; it is much more likely to be understood as "output _is_ the porcelain". Your new text even supports this latter understanding. The original description "machine-readable output" is unambiguous and cannot be misunderstood. -- Hannes