"Linus Arver via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Avoid splitting up the command over two lines. This way, a command like
>
> $ git grep git.contacts Documentation
>
> will return a positive hit for this location.
>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index e734a3f0f17..a33fe7e11f6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -494,8 +494,8 @@ mentioned below, but should instead be sent privately to the Git
> Security mailing list{security-ml-ref}.
>
> Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
> -people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git
> -contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to
> +people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git contacts`
> +command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to
> identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. Also, when you made
> trial merges of your topic to `next` and `seen`, you may have noticed
> work by others conflicting with your changes. There is a good possibility
Sure. But I think a general rule to avoid writing documentation pages
that require a fix-up like this patch would be more valuable in the
longer term.
Or investing in a better "grep" command ;-)
In any case, this is an improvement, so let's queue it as-is.
