Alexandr Miloslavskiy <alexandr.miloslavskiy@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think I have implemented most suggestions in PatchV2. Thanks! > >> I am not sure if we want to repeat this all over the place. >> >> We do not say "For details about the <commit> syntax, see the >> 'SPECIFYING REVISIONS' section of linkgit:git-rev-parse[1]" for >> every command that takes <commit> from the command line. >> >> Is your urge to suggest adding this sentence coming from that you >> are much more familiar with <commit> than <pathspec>? In other >> words, if you were more familiar with Git, would you still be adding >> this (and not corresponding one for <commit>)? > > Commit is a well known term, dating from ancient times like CVS or > even older. That's more or less irrelevant. I am reacting to this from your change that you omitted quoting in your reply: > +For more details about the <pathspec> syntax, see the 'pathspec' entry > +in linkgit:gitglossary[7]. That sentence is for those who have some notion of <pathspec> but does not know enough about its syntax. CVS does not let you specify <commit> like "master^{/^fix frotz}~4"; A user a user who is familiar with CVS's commits would still want to refer to the section "For details about the <commit> syntax". I am not advocating to add the reference to SPECIFYING REVISIONS section; instead we should let readers know that every time they see <defined word>, they can refer to the glossary for more details. > Pathspec, however, is something new. Compared to CVS, everything in Git may be new, but that was a news in 2010, not this year.