On Sun, Feb 27 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 26/02/22 12.34, Matheus Felipe via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>> From: Matheus Felipe <matheusfelipeog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> When the `git config --global --help` command is invoked,
>>> the cli documentation is shown in the terminal with a small
>>> error in one of the values of the Type group, which is the
>>> absence of the type flag in the `--type` argument.
>>> This commit fixes that.
>>>
>>
>> What about the commit message below?
>>
>> ```
>> The usage help for --type option of `git config` is missing `type`
>> in the argument placeholder (`<>`). Add it.
>> ```
>
> It is more concise, and at the same time points out the problem
> being addressed a lot more explicitly. Much better.
>
>>> - OPT_CALLBACK('t', "type", &type, "", N_("value is given this type"), option_parse_type),
>>> + OPT_CALLBACK('t', "type", &type, N_("type"), N_("value is given this type"), option_parse_type),
>>
>>
>> The help should be `give the value the specified type`.
>
> I am not sure if this is much of an improvement.
>
> $ git config --type=bool junk.flag 0
> $ git config junk.flag
> false
>
> uses the type information to turn "0" into "false" before it writes
> the value set to the variable to the file, while
>
> $ git config junk.flag 0
> $ git config junk.flag
> 0
> $ git config --type=bool junk.flag
> false
>
> shows that a stored value of "0" can be turned into "false" when
> showing. "Give the value the specified type" does not capture the
> essense in either direction.
>
> Before setting or showing, convert the value to its canonical
> representation according to the given type.
>
> is what we want to convey, but it is quote a mouthful as-is.
>
> Saying "Assume the value is of this type" would strongly imply
> "Convert ... to its canonical reporesentation", and the current
> "value is given this type" may be a close enough and shorter
> approximation of it. I dunno.
Perhaps:
"coerce (on read and write) <value> to <type>"
or:
"coerce (on read & write) <value> to <type>"
or:
"coerce (on rw) <value> to <type>"
For the short help, depending on how verbose we'd like to be?
In any case a follow-up fix, just the "" to "type" being proposed here
is orthagonal & looks good to me.
