On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 09:03:34AM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > This makes our git(1) manpage look as follows: > > Main porcelain commands > git-add(git) > Add file contents to the index. > > [...] > > gitk(git) > The Git repository browser. > > scalar(scalar) > A tool for managing large Git repositories. Good catch. The patch looks good (I was going to suggest ?:, but I see Ævar beat me to it). I wondered if we might have caught this in a more automatic way. The output of: cd Documentation ./doc-diff cc75e556a9^ cc75e556a9 makes the problem apparent, but I don't fault reviewers for not running it. I rarely remember to do so. And in general you need a human looking at doc-diff output to know if it was the intended change or not. I wondered if it might be worth running ./doc-diff v2.37.0 v2.38.0-rc1 near a release to scan over all of the changes. But the diff is over 8000 lines, and I admit my eyes glazed over before I got to the problematic hunks (even though I knew I was looking for them!). You can limit it a bit with --diff-filter=a, which drops new entries (which can't have regressed!), but it's still over 4000 lines. So I dunno. I think doc-diff is a potentially useful tool, but I'm not sure how to point the human attention at the right spot to find a bug. Maybe "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is our best bet here. After all, it did find this bug before the release. :) -Peff
