Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It seems like a good idea to make these consistent, if you're feeling > more ambitious than just git-log's manpage then: > > $ git grep '<pathspec>' -- Documentation/git-*.txt|wc -l > 54 > $ git grep '<path>' -- Documentation/git-*.txt|wc -l > 161 > > Most/all of these should probably be changed to one or the other. There is another thing we want to normalize. Originally <pathspec> was invented to be a collective noun (i.e. a set of one or more wildmatch patterns that specify paths that match any of these patterns is called a pathspec). These days, however, we more often refer to each individual pattern as <pathspec> than using the word in its original way. We can look for '<pathspec>...' in the documentation to find these more modern usage. This latter form would match readers' expectation better, but there still are a few places (e.g. "stash forget <pathspec>") that use the word as a collection of pattterns. While these places may be using the word "correctly", in the modern world, they give an incorrect impression that the command somehow is special and can take a pathspec with only a single pattern, when they can take one or more patterns. We should make sure we use "<pathspec>..." uniformly in the documentation in these places. Thanks.
