Jakub Wilk <jwilk@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/git-remote.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt
> index 1dec314834..932a5c3ea4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ OPTIONS
> -v::
> --verbose::
> Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name.
> - For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.)
> + For promisor remotes, also show which filters (`blob:none` etc.)
> are configured.
> NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand.
When you give more than one filters to "git clone", they are used to
create a single "combined" filter, so strictly speaking, "also show
which filter is configured" is a grammatically valid that might be
more technically correct. E.g. the user may see
$ git clone --filter=blob:none --filter=tree:2 $there sample-repo
$ git -C sample-repo remote -v show
origin ... (fetch) [combine:blob:none+tree:2]
origin ... (push)
in the output. It may not be a bad idea to update the code to show
the filter information in a way that is more clear that we are
seeing a list of filters (perhaps showing the above as "[blob:none
tree:2]" might be a good starting point, as a totally separate topic
(#leftoverbits).
After taking your patch as-is, that is. In user's mind, they
consider they gave two filters, and making a single combined filter
is something Git did without being asked for its own convenience,
so "which filters are configured" is, while it may be technically
less correct, much closer to what the end-user perceives.
Thanks.
