From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SBL_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F111F9FE for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232198AbhBWI3c (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:29:32 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:59684 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232182AbhBWI3a (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:29:30 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DEA123CAF; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:28:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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; s=sasl; bh=yaY8A4EvskNsMsZHnFDd/f0KH5A=; b=m4ITId ANKOGjr8Y1Z+sP6iALnh980JW4SiSDmRUug72djDSiKhDpJ0GZsRhuBVW66NBrS9 6x9+ueEGRtUhbE9NjyXHGsUqk5Bq8rY1WFaWQjItCcjr0WLUl67Vk2vioZ1Cr0gR 9MD6RHU8aixMLzeccxXiK5xvb9+H7f1/GVFdM= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=HeVuWxr40E4v4QPEgQVwbchxynDF9pLN CboLCOrgfboRJu7ea7X2y5uCMRXBjAH6VH2OKmveUOpgV5E2Vg7zmu8FKk2LxhDg UBgM1+Nph22HBdHhto220NdxjYKvnhhLtV9hGKR28jNY/Qe2jihWBXIsoUjgF0jW TQTQhH+2Sxc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE00B123CAE; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:28:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FE63123CAC; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:28:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Sixt Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] replace "parameters" by "arguments" in error messages References: <40b2fedc-fdde-1fc0-ef98-86d8ea638193@kdbg.org> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:28:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: <40b2fedc-fdde-1fc0-ef98-86d8ea638193@kdbg.org> (Johannes Sixt's message of "Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:38:52 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 24BA5832-75B1-11EB-AFE9-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Sixt writes: > When an error message informs the user about an incorrect command > invocation, it should refer to "arguments", not "parameters". > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt > --- > Recently, I was greated by an accidental `git tag` invocation: > > $ git tag one two three > fatal: too many params > > This is bad in two regards: (1) There's a techie-speak abbreviation > in a user-visible text, (2) and it is wrong terminology to refer to > "parameters" when "arguments" would be correct. > > Then I looked at every single occurrence of "parameter" in Documentation/ > and half-way through the rest and wanted to correct all incorrect uses, > but things are by far not as clear-cut as I hoped. > > So, I stopped here and fixed the one pain point that triggered the voyage, > which I hope is not too controversal. > > bisect.c | 2 +- > builtin/notes.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > builtin/stash.c | 2 +- > builtin/tag.c | 2 +- > t/t3301-notes.sh | 6 +++--- > t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 4 ++-- > 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c > index 75ea0eb57f..ae48d19acf 100644 > --- a/bisect.c > +++ b/bisect.c > @@ -1064,7 +1064,7 @@ enum bisect_error bisect_next > if (!all) { > fprintf(stderr, _("No testable commit found.\n" > - "Maybe you started with bad path parameters?\n")); > + "Maybe you started with bad path arguments?\n")); > return BISECT_NO_TESTABLE_COMMIT; > } > diff --git a/builtin/notes.c b/builtin/notes.c The above hunk is curious for a few reasons. - The hunk header claims that both the preimage and the postimage are 7 lines long, but they only have 5 (2 precontext, 1 change and 2 postcontext) lines. - There are spaces before tab on a few context lines that do not exist in the patch target. Ahh, format=flawed, that is. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed