Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] date: document and test "raw-local" mode

["Jakub Narębski" <jnareb@gmail.com>]

W dniu 2016-07-26 o 20:47, Jeff King pisze:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:15:37PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> 
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>>> index 5d1de06..3ec75d4 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>>> @@ -725,8 +725,8 @@ include::pretty-options.txt[]
>>>  	`iso-local`), the user's local time zone is used instead.
>>>  +
>>>  `--date=relative` shows dates relative to the current time,
>>> -e.g. ``2 hours ago''. The `-local` option cannot be used with
>>> -`--raw` or `--relative`.
>>> +e.g. ``2 hours ago''. The `-local` option has no effect for
>>> +`--relative`.
>>
>> Do I understand it correctly: --relative is a short form for more
>> generic --date=relative (which probably should be spelled 
>> --date-format=relative), and that --date=relative-local is the
>> same as --date=relative, that is *-local suffix does not change
>> how date is formatted?
>>
>> Because I don't think you can say --relative-local ("The `-local`
>> option has no effect on `--relative`"), can you?
> 
> All correct. There is no --relative-local because "--relative" is a
> historical artifact. We could support --foo for every --date=foo, but I
> don't think there is a reason to do so (and reasons not to, like
> avoiding cluttering the option space).

So shouldn't the last sentence 

  "The `-local` option has no effect for `--relative`." 

be rather

 "The `-local` option has no effect for `--date=relative`."

Though this might be just me being overly nitpicky...

-- 
Jakub Narębski