On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:56:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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... OK, wherever git-receive-pack, git-upload-archive or git-upload-back was changed to the new form, I changed it back. These are afaik the last 3 git-* commands in bindir. > > @@ -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'll change it back to git-diff, but retain "git apply". > I did not look at the rest. Is the concept OK for this change? I can submit another patch. -- Heikki Orsila heikki.orsila@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/shd -- 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