On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 07:48:52PM +0200, Štěpán Němec wrote: > > Yeah, I think that is a big improvement over the status quo. I might > > also be worth starting with a single-sentence overview of what is common > > to both modes. Something like: > > > > Output the contents or details of one or more objects. [...] > > I thought about that when proposing the rewrite, but feel that it would > again just duplicate what's said elsewhere, in this case even before, > not after, in the very first line of the man page: > > git-cat-file - Provide content or type and size information for > repository objects Ah, true, I was thinking that the DESCRIPTION section would be the first thing users would read, but I didn't notice the headline. I agree that what it says is probably sufficient (though arguably "type and size" is slightly inaccurate there; I said "details" in my proposed text but maybe that is too vague). > > This command can operate in two modes, depending on whether an > > option from the --batch family is specified. > > > > In non-batch mode, the command provides information on a single object > > given on the command line. > ^^^^^ > Any particular reason you prefer "given" to "named"? However absurd a > notion of giving an actual object on the command line might seem, to me > "named" is better in that it leaves no room for such misinterpretation. > And the <object> description in OPTIONS talks about "ways to spell > object names", building on the same concept. Nope, I didn't even do that replacement consciously (I was just fleshing out my example, and ended up deciding nothing else needed to be changed). So "named" is fine by me. Thanks. -Peff
