Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] doc: align 'diff --no-index' in text with synopsis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 27.04.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Martin Ågren:
> On 27 April 2018 at 20:28, Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Am 27.04.2018 um 19:18 schrieb Martin Ågren:
>>> On 27 April 2018 at 19:04, Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> The two '<path>' parameters are not optional but the option
>>>> '--no-index' is. Also move the `--options` part to the same
>>>> place where the other variants show them.
>>>
>>> Should this commit message be updated after the changes you did to
>>> address Junio's comment? This text suggests you want to place --no-index
>>> in [] (and you did in v1) but you do not do that below.
>>>
>>>> All three items are already correct in the synopsis.
>>>
>>> Same here, now you actually do change things there.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, my Reviewed-by was on another patch. I do find this
>>
>> Sorry, I've added that trailer after reading "The diff LGTM.", then
>> applied Junio's changes and forgot to remove the trailer.
>>
>>> one better though thanks to Junio's suggestion (except the mismatch with
>>> the commit message).
>>
>> I'll fix that with this:
>>
>>         doc: align 'diff --no-index' in text with synopsis
> 
> s/with/and/ since they both change? It's not that the first changes to
> match the second, but they actually both change to match each other (and
> to be correct, obviously).

Corrected

> 
>>         Make the two '<path>' parameters in DESCRIPTION mandatory and
>>         move the `--options` part to the same place where the other
>>         variants show them. And finally make `--no-index` in SYNOPSIS
>>         as mandatory as in DESCRIPTION.
> 
> Great! Junio had some good reasoning about how --no-index is
> sometimes optional, but not always. Not sure if it's worth spelling that
> out. (Although one could argue that it already did trip us up once. :-))

The post-context already explains that.

> Eric's point about "--options" vs "options" seemed right to me. If you
> address that, note that this message says "--options".




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux