Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> + This option is equivalent to the <repository> argument; the latter >>>> + wins if both are specified. >>> >>> To what does "latter" refer in this case? (I presume it means the >>> standalone <repository> argument, though the text feels ambiguous.) >>> >>> Also, both the standalone argument and the right-hand-side of --repo= >>> are spelled "<repository>", so there may be potential for confusion >>> when talking about <repository> (despite the subsequent "argument"). >>> Perhaps qualifying it as "_standalone_ <repository> argument" might >>> help. >> >> I didn't find that "latter" too hard to understand (I admit that my >> reading stuttered there, though). >> >> I do not think saying "standalone <repository> argument" there would >> help very much, because there is no mention of "standalone" around >> there. The earlier part of the sentence mentions "option" and >> "argument", so "the repository specified as an argument is used if >> both this option and an argument are given" or something? > > Yes, that addresses the two (minor) ambiguities and sounds fine. > Thinking about it afterward, I came up with this: > > This option is equivalent to the <repository> argument. If both > are specified, the command-line argument takes precedence. Sure, even though I felt a similar stuttering at around 'both' when reading it for the first time. Let me amend using your phrasing and requeue. -- 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