Heikki Orsila <heikki.orsila@xxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/archive.c b/archive.c
> index e2280df..042f587 100644
> --- a/archive.c
> +++ b/archive.c
> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int parse_archive_args(int argc, const char **argv,
> OPT_STRING(0, "remote", &remote, "repo",
> "retrieve the archive from remote repository <repo>"),
> OPT_STRING(0, "exec", &exec, "cmd",
> - "path to the remote git-upload-archive command"),
> + "path to the remote git upload-archive command"),
> OPT_END()
> };
Are you sure about this one? How would one spell the command line?
$ git archive --exec='/usr/local/bin/git upload-archive'
I somehow think this wouldn't fly well.
I do not think a single patch with the above hunk (which I think is a
mistake) and other bits that are obviously good (e.g. the first hunk to
builtin-apply.c we see below) is reviewable, but I cannot think of a
better alterantive. Sigh...
> diff --git a/builtin-apply.c b/builtin-apply.c
> index 2216a0b..1e14904 100644
> --- a/builtin-apply.c
> +++ b/builtin-apply.c
> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void say_patch_name(FILE *output, const char *pre,
> static void read_patch_file(struct strbuf *sb, int fd)
> {
> if (strbuf_read(sb, fd, 0) < 0)
> - die("git-apply: read returned %s", strerror(errno));
> + die("git apply: read returned %s", strerror(errno));
>
> /*
> * Make sure that we have some slop in the buffer
Good.
> @@ -506,17 +506,17 @@ static char *gitdiff_verify_name(const char *line, int isnull, char *orig_name,
> name = orig_name;
> len = strlen(name);
> if (isnull)
> - die("git-apply: bad git-diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr);
> + die("git apply: bad git diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr);
> another = find_name(line, NULL, p_value, TERM_TAB);
> if (!another || memcmp(another, name, len))
> - die("git-apply: bad git-diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr);
> + die("git apply: bad git diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr);
I am not sure about this one. This is not talking about the git-diff
program, but about a variant of "diff" with git flavour (similar to the
word "unified diff" -- there is no "unified" command with subcommand
"diff"). So rolling this kind fo change into a topic that tries to get
rid of "dashed form of commands" feels quite wrong, even though as a
general wording improvement, I think it is better than the original (and I
would even suggest rewording to "git patch", to make sure we are not
talking about the "git-diff" program).
I did not look at the rest.
--
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
