On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:06:51AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ------ >8 ----------- >8 ----------- >8 ----------- >8 ------ > Subject: ls-files: avoid the verb "deprecate" for individual options > > When e750951e74f updated the documentation to give greater > visibility to the --exclude-standard option, it marked the > `--exclude-per-directory` option as "deprecated". While it > technically is correct that being deprecated does not necessarily > mean it is planned to be removed later, it seems to cause confusion > to readers, especially when we merely mean > > The option Y can be used to achieve the same thing as the option > X, so to those of you who aren't familiar with either X or Y, we > would recommend to use Y. > > This is especially true for `--exclude-standard` vs the combination > of more granular `--exclude-from` and `--exclude-per-directory` > options. It is true that one common combination of the granular > options can be obtained by just giving the former, but that does not > necessarily mean a more granular control is not necessary. > > State why we recommend looking at `--exclude-standard` when we do so > in the description of `--exclude-per-directory`, instead of saying > that the option is deprecated. Also, spell out the recipe to emulate > what `--exclude-standard` does, so that the users can give it minute > tweaks (like "not reading the global exclusion file from core.excludes"). This perfectly sums up the situation from my viewpoint. And I think the changes you suggest not only remove the confusion over the term, they lay out the possible options for the user much better. The patch looks good to me, modulo one minor comment: > diff --git c/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt w/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt > index f65a8cd91d..93a0111cfb 100644 > --- c/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt > +++ w/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt > @@ -119,8 +119,10 @@ OPTIONS > > --exclude-per-directory=<file>:: > Read additional exclude patterns that apply only to the > - directory and its subdirectories in <file>. Deprecated; use > - --exclude-standard instead. > + directory and its subdirectories in <file>. If you are > + trying to emulate the way how Porcelain commands work, > + using the `--exclude-standard` instead is easier and more > + thorough. As a native English speaker, the phrasing here is awkward to me. I'd probably say "...emulate the way that Porcelain commands work". Or alternatively, "emulate how Porcelain commands work". -Peff
