Junio C Hamano wrote: > > This is somewhat imcomplete; the current merge-options.txt seems to be > organized more-or-less alphabetically (begins with "commit", ascends to > "ff", "log", "s-something", and ends with "X"), but it has acquired > additions at random places (e.g. "ff-only"). > > I do not think reorganizing the option descriptions in functional groups > is a bad idea, and if we make that an overall goal of our documentation > set, the patch is certainly going in the right direction. > > I used to prefer alphabetical order slightly over functional grouping > because it would make things easier to find in printed pages, but these > days people read on paper a lot less often, so I am personally fine with > "do not list options in alphabetical order; group them with related > features, and do so consistently across all manual pages". > > So I'll take the patch as is, but before going further I would like to > first see list concensus to such a reorganization. I noticed the alphabetical sorting when I made the patch, so I guess my opinion on functional grouping is pretty obvious. FWIW, I find functional groupings make it easier to find unknown options. An alphabetical sorting is really only helpful if you already know what you're looking for. And in that case, like you say, these docs are usually read in an electronic form, where it's easy enough to just do a search for whatever's desired. In any case, regardless of the consensus on this issue, alphabetical sorting doesn't seem to make much sense for merge-options.txt given the way it's included in git-merge.txt and git-pull.txt. M. -- 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