At Sat Dec 05 21:04:14 -0500 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Alex Vandiver <alex@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > ... > > "git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] <name>", > > - "git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [group | remote]", > > + "git remote [-v | --verbose] [-q | --quiet] update [-p | --prune] [group]", Hm, I hadn't noticed that I'd changed "[group | remote]" to "[group]". I think this is due to a mismerge on my part -- apologies. As another data point, `git fetch` describes this as "[<repository> | <group>]". > Three issues to consider: > > - shouldn't we use the same typography, i.e. <group>? > > - should we say <name> _if_ we are not going to say <group>|<remote>? > > - should we keep it as <group>|<remote> to make it clear that only this > subcommand allows the group nickname? > > The first two are easy and I expect the answers to be both yes. The third > one needs some studying and further thought. > > - is "remote update" the only one that takes group nickname? My quick skim of the code says "yes" -- the other commands only deal with single remotes at a time, and prune is oblivious to groups. > - should "remote update" the only one? e.g. does "remote prune" also > take group? if not, shouldn't it? Properly, it "ought" to, though I don't see much utility over `git remote fetch --prune groupname`. Probably at the same time, the parallel pruning codepaths in builtin-fetch.c:prune_refs() and builtin-remote.c:prune_remote() should be unified. - Alex -- Networking -- only one letter away from not working -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html