Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people >> who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works. > > Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch. > Why would you think it would not be a good idea to assume that people > would not be familiar with how GNU patch works? The audience of Git these days are far more widely spread than the kernel circle. I am not opposed to _helping_ those who happen to know "patch", but I was against a description that assumes readers know it, i.e. making it a requirement to know "patch" to understand "apply". >> But I do agree that the description of -v, --verbose has a lot of >> room for improvement. >> >> Report progress to stderr. By default, only a message about the >> current patch being applied will be printed. This option will cause >> additional information to be reported. >> >> It is totally unclear what "additional information" is reported at >> all. In other words, your enhancement to the documentation could go like: ... By default, ... With this option, you will additionally see such and such and such in the output (this is similar to what "patch --dry-run" would give you). See the EXAMPLES section to get a feel of how it looks like. and I would not be opposed, as long as "such and such and such" are written in such a way that the reader does not have to have a prior experience with GNU patch in order to understand it. Clear? -- 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