From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62751F437 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 00:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750847AbdA1AUm (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:20:42 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57866 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750741AbdA1AUk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:20:40 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C88C63E88; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:20:34 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=oKw7UD1CzcYtXkZ6VqTLsy7tULQ=; b=nFL5gN AP0GgR4qAGi7wGsCrDCqP1EqcZR8jQiKtZ5/9azQz1J+6Re/Lze2fU1IgTkOApeB Gj6UnDtiUlVN77gAFQFotTwlMRTP9ItmzjwPBoeGPLUg/MZBxz9qAkU2OmgmYQfc +Q8rzCylBdtWr12V0IjHNfq3Tal5Ppvddr3J4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BEThl1+XNgkcMyxd4cCx+uapjDzOiZHV Oo3lPQZSue50aMp+0uP5podx4dRxkgUVlP1VH/VX4cdVFnogJmAM4jLlW6eJKq4k 60bT9ezKK4leJQFpS/wsc9XhE5OY51RiTqRmza9B2bboxR9Ko4reEEiTGHh9NFqa Yjd9HXm2pWM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CA463E87; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2ACD63E86; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:20:33 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] reset: support the --stdin option References: <3b0bad26045ed175f40f050e15b65cb6a8f2368c.1485520718.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20170127170422.lvpghp6jdud37zxx@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170127221221.d53icsq7mdkbqm23@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:20:32 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170127221221.d53icsq7mdkbqm23@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:12:21 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9584015A-E4EF-11E6-A62A-FE3F13518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I think a lot of the documentation uses to refer to pathspecs > (e.g., git-log(1), git-diff(1), etc). As long as we're consistent with > that convention, I don't think it's that big a deal. > > This spot needs a specific mention because it violates the convention. Yup, I think we are in agreement. > I don't know if the are other spots where it might be unclear, but I > think we're probably better to tighten those as they come up, rather > than switch to saying "" everywhere. Oh, I do not think I would disagree. As I think this change is an instancethat makes the resulting text unclear, it would set a good example to tighten existing one as part of its clean-up. It can be done as a follow-up bugfix patch (i.e. "previous one made the resulting document uncleasr and here is to fix it"), but that would not serve as good ra ole model to mentor newer contributor as doing the other way around.