Victoria Dye wrote: > If I could offer a suggestion, my preference would be that you split the > series into three parts: one with the straightforward, easier-to-review > changes, another with the more substantial updates to user-facing > docs/information (which might warrant more discussion, i.e. which options we > should be showing for a command in the SYNOPSIS/-h), and the last catching > any new inconsistencies & adding the test. That way, more involved > discussion on some patches doesn't prevent *all* of them from being merged. > > I think the following patches would fit a "straightforward, > easier-to-review" series: > > * Patch 1 (CodingGuidelines: update and clarify command-line conventions) > * Patch 2 (builtin/bundle.c: use \t, not fix indentation 2-SP indentation) > * Patch 3 (bundle: define subcommand -h in terms of command -h) > * Patch 5 (doc SYNOPSIS: don't use ' for subcommands) > * Patch 6 (doc SYNOPSIS: consistently use ' for commands) > * Patch 7 (doc SYNOPSIS & -h: fix incorrect alternates syntax) > * Patch 8 (built-ins: consistently add "\n" between "usage" and options) > * Patch 9 (doc txt & -h consistency: word-wrap) > * Patch 10 (doc txt & -h consistency: fix incorrect alternates syntax) > * Patch 12 (doc txt & -h consistency: add missing "]" to bugreport "-h") > * Patch 13 (doc txt & -h consistency: correct padding around "[]()") > * Patch 14 (stash doc SYNOPSIS & -h: correct padding around "[]()") > * Patch 15 (doc txt & -h consistency: use "<options>", not "<options>...") > * Patch 16 (t/helper/test-proc-receive.c: use "<options>", not > "<options>...") > * Patch 17 (doc txt & -h consistency: fix mismatching labels) > * Patch 18 (doc txt & -h consistency: add or fix optional "--" syntax) > > (basically, 1-18, skipping patch 4 because it changes the content of an > error message & patch 11 because it adds an option to the -h of 'cat-file') > > In terms of review, my only comment on those patches is that 7 & 10 could > probably benefit from being squashed together [1]. Otherwise, with the > changes you mentioned in response to Junio's feedback [2], I think that > subset of the series would be ready to merge. > I forgot to mention this in the previous message, but it's probably worth noting - regardless of whether or not you split the series, I am still planning to review the remaining patches you've submitted here (that is, everything *other than* what's in the list above, which I've already looked over/commented on). I likely won't get the chance until later this week at the earliest, though. Thanks! -Victoria
