On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I still agree that not listing all mergetools in multiple places is a >>> good thing. But doing the whole stuff of extending --tool-help for >>> git-mergetool and git-difftool to return a simple list that can be >>> used in git-completion.bash etc. IMHO is a separate topic and out of >>> scope of this patch. >> >> Exactly. If you know that is the long term direction, I would have >> preferred you _not_ to touch any existing descriptions of the tools >> (not even changing them to refer to "--tool-help") in this patch, in >> order to avoid unnecessary conflicts with the topic of unifying the >> list of tool backends, which can be written and cooked separately. > > To the the best of my knowledge there currently no such topic > underway, and even if it was, it would be unclear how long it would > take for integration. If I was not touching the existing descriptions > of the tools, and a Git version was to be released after accepting my > patch but before the --tool-help topic is merged, that would leave the > documentation in a wrong state. I was just trying to be consistent by > also touching the descriptions, which IMHO is the correct thing to do > in the short term, as you yourself say the topic to make use of > --tool-help is a long term goal. Thanks Sebastian. I think your patch would be good, so long as we leave the descriptions alone. If you could please re-roll to add the new scriptlet without touching the docs then that would be very helpful. I have a separate patch to update the mergetool documentation for --tool-help which I will send shortly. I have another topic (--symlinks) in next upon which it is based. -- David -- 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