Le 27/10/2021 à 20:56, Martin Ågren a écrit : > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 21:35, Jean-Noël Avila via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> --- a/Documentation/git-archimport.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-archimport.txt >> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ git-archimport - Import a GNU Arch repository into Git >> SYNOPSIS >> -------- >> [verse] >> -'git archimport' [-h] [-v] [-o] [-a] [-f] [-T] [-D depth] [-t tempdir] >> - <archive/branch>[:<git-branch>] ... >> +'git archimport' [-h] [-v] [-o] [-a] [-f] [-T] [-D <depth>] [-t <tempdir>] >> + <archive>/<branch>[:<git-branch>]... > > Your rewrite makes it seem like one would write, e.g., "myarch/master" > with a literal slash, whereas my initial thought was that the original > tried to express something like "(<archive> | <branch>)". But I have > zero experience with "GNU Arch" and git-archimport, so I can't really > tell whether your rewrite is for the better or not. :-) The <archive>/<branch> grammar is the one available in the usage of the command. > > In any case, this document goes on to write "<archive/branch>" several > times. Supposedly, they would all want to be changed as well. There's > also an instance of "Archive/branch identifier ..." to maybe look into. Ack. All the changes in a single commit > >> --- a/Documentation/git-cvsimport.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-cvsimport.txt >> @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ git-cvsimport - Salvage your data out of another SCM people love to hate >> SYNOPSIS >> -------- >> [verse] >> -'git cvsimport' [-o <branch-for-HEAD>] [-h] [-v] [-d <CVSROOT>] >> +'git cvsimport' [-o <branch-for-HEAD>] [-h] [-v] [-d <cvsroot>] > >> -<CVS_module>:: >> +<CVS-module>:: >> The CVS module you want to import. Relative to <CVSROOT>. > > Here's another "<CVSROOT>". Is this an environment variable or a placeholder? > >> --- a/Documentation/git-http-push.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-http-push.txt >> @@ -63,16 +63,15 @@ of such patterns separated by a colon ":" (this means that a ref name > >> -Each pattern pair consists of the source side (before the colon) >> -and the destination side (after the colon). The ref to be >> -pushed is determined by finding a match that matches the source >> -side, and where it is pushed is determined by using the >> -destination side. >> +Each pattern pair '<src>:<dst>' consists of the source side (before >> +the colon) and the destination side (after the colon). The ref to be >> +pushed is determined by finding a match that matches the source side, >> +and where it is pushed is determined by using the destination side. > > This looks like the insertion of "'<src>:<dst>' early on, where the rest > of the changes are just follow-on line-wrapping. > Strict line-wrapping doesn't work well with version control in free text. And it doesn't work well either with asciidoc, where some unlucky wrapping can generate spurious formatting. > I wonder if this patch could benefit from being broken into smaller > pieces. Maybe a few preliminaries like "change <foo|bar|baz> to > (foo|bar|baz)" and the like, then even if the final patch is "large", it > will not be *as large*? But there are clearly sub-topics here, such as > "change <some_arg> to <some-arg>" and "change arg to <arg>". Or maybe > this doesn't make sense as an approach to cutting this patch into > smaller pieces, but I thought I'd mention it. The changes are muliplying. I will split them. > >> - - It is an error if <src> does not match exactly one of the >> + - It is an error if '<src>' does not match exactly one of the >> local refs. >> >> - - If <dst> does not match any remote ref, either >> + - If '<dst>' does not match any remote ref, either > > I believe these match Junio's preference, so ok. But again, this looks > like it could go in a separate patch from a lot of these other changes > as a way of keeping to somewhat focused changes. > >> - (--[cached|deleted|others|ignored|stage|unmerged|killed|modified])* >> - (-[c|d|o|i|s|u|k|m])* >> + [--(cached|deleted|others|ignored|stage|unmerged|killed|modified)...] >> + [-(c|d|o|i|s|u|k|m)...] > > Sort of cute how this saves on repeating the "--" by pulling it out. > Anyway, nothing new in your patch. :-) To me, the grammar should express at the token level (not like here), and anyway, this synopsis is not correct: even if these options are allowed to be repeated several times on the command line, this is useless and some of them have the same meaning (and this should be shown). This way of expressing the grammar induce the reader into thinking that this is some kind of inner grammar to the command. Jean-Noël
