On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But if the user types "git help" they'll be presented with the exact same > list of common commands again, at which point they'll probably wonder why > Git suggested that. This is exactly what I meant with my earlier comment. > Funnily enough, if they type "git help help" then they'll get the "git-help" > man page. So, there is no command called "git-help" on the system, but from > the user's perspective it walks, talks and quacks like all the "real" > commands, and so they probably consider it to be one. Whether or not the > "help" subcommand corresponds to a real executable or script is really just > an implementation detail, I think. I fully agree here, it doesn't matter if there is a 'git-help.sh' or 'git-help' executable, as long as from the users POV there is a 'git help' command should we advertise it. > Having said that, I think your suggestion is sound if it were reworded as: > > See 'man git' and 'git help [command]' for more information. That would be good, since it does not advertise a git help command, instead it advertises 'git help command', which clearly -is- a command (since typing 'git help command' brings up a man page). -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
