From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Organov Subject: Re: git-merge: inconsistent manual page. Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:32:40 +0300 Message-ID: <87wst44cvb.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> References: <7vsl3sla5q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk5p4l9gs.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 30 20:54:34 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ImxAM-00027C-HT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:54:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753551AbXJ3TyG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:54:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753165AbXJ3TyG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:54:06 -0400 Received: from javad.com ([216.122.176.236]:1534 "EHLO javad.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752453AbXJ3TyF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:54:05 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1277 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:54:04 EDT Received: from osv ([87.236.81.130]) by javad.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id l9UJWjm36373 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:32:46 GMT (envelope-from s.organov@javad.com) Received: from osv by osv with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ImwpM-0002PL-2U for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:32:40 +0300 In-Reply-To: <7vk5p4l9gs.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue\, 30 Oct 2007 11\:54\:11 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Subject: git-merge: document but discourage the historical syntax > > Historically "git merge" took its command line arguments in a > rather strange order. Document the historical syntax, and also > document clearly that it is not encouraged in new scripts. > > There is no reason to deprecate the historical syntax, as the > current code can sanely tell which syntax the caller is using, > and existing scripts by people do use the historical syntax. OK, your patch is better than what I've suggested. The only thing that your patch seems to be missing is prepending -m to :: in the OPTIONS section. Yeah, it could be more strict to just describe , but if there were no historical syntax, then you'd put '-m ' description in, right? So the latter might be better anyway. -- Sergei.