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=-3.9 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 381B7202A2 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756262AbdJQCqR (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:46:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65226 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755028AbdJQCqP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:46:15 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C47B06B0; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:46:15 -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; s=sasl; bh=m2VBpqA0VT/o8xrpon4X0ueIEPA=; b=kCr1FR SAb6qMN1FRhO8/Hdfer5jmGc3gxTeKPb+Eh8HYJrEAS4KGYl4EkPTzqeI9KMoID2 NyaKsUOfOjBmhD5OLDsOLhYVbpDIuHl5tnbX8gAJTKkAF3kCDZS3UudHxp+Gt+my jSrXcKwac0WmLI2fGKJrLQ59c6SnvvcNDdbh4= 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=VmxDF09KvEldiwgN4LQKgu9sJSKShqpg fLc52jeCAt8HlanbkoLVL6MNGzXVdEToltcsuAKWFlJ6WZK9U5u3llkI+qgLzzxU gXNQdjh9ximRtn74n+PUQa6V24NXuxY7JBnWeUdYPi0RusSztmJQULzJmh+gz+89 doL2Oe7Grs4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A138B06AF; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:46:15 -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 765ABB06AE; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:46:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: David Glasser Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: list filter-branch subdirectory-filter first References: <0102015f277a12fe-c69362e3-b14c-4b5c-abaa-4693fd6632c2-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:46:13 +0900 In-Reply-To: <0102015f277a12fe-c69362e3-b14c-4b5c-abaa-4693fd6632c2-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> (David Glasser's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:17:12 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5798F322-B2E5-11E7-AB06-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org David Glasser writes: > From: David Glasser > > The docs claim that filters are applied in the listed order, so > subdirectory-filter should come first. > --- > Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Good. Could you sign it off? Somewhat related tangent is that we may want to also reorder the output from "git filter-branch -h" to the order of filter application. For that matter, the order in which the SYNOPSIS section lists these command line arguments may want to match, both for consistency and as an extra reminder to the users.