From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Prem <prem.muthedath@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: document the behavior of --repo
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:55:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqsieufwv5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cR-45NzCK5mu9d=1o8nss54ShYn1Snexx5rT+En8XeMcA@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:30:18 -0500")
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>
>>>> + This option is equivalent to the <repository> argument; the latter
>>>> + wins if both are specified.
>>>
>>> To what does "latter" refer in this case? (I presume it means the
>>> standalone <repository> argument, though the text feels ambiguous.)
>>>
>>> Also, both the standalone argument and the right-hand-side of --repo=
>>> are spelled "<repository>", so there may be potential for confusion
>>> when talking about <repository> (despite the subsequent "argument").
>>> Perhaps qualifying it as "_standalone_ <repository> argument" might
>>> help.
>>
>> I didn't find that "latter" too hard to understand (I admit that my
>> reading stuttered there, though).
>>
>> I do not think saying "standalone <repository> argument" there would
>> help very much, because there is no mention of "standalone" around
>> there. The earlier part of the sentence mentions "option" and
>> "argument", so "the repository specified as an argument is used if
>> both this option and an argument are given" or something?
>
> Yes, that addresses the two (minor) ambiguities and sounds fine.
> Thinking about it afterward, I came up with this:
>
> This option is equivalent to the <repository> argument. If both
> are specified, the command-line argument takes precedence.
Sure, even though I felt a similar stuttering at around 'both' when
reading it for the first time.
Let me amend using your phrasing and requeue.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-28 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-26 8:21 git push --repo option not working as described in git manual Prem
2015-01-26 16:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-01-27 12:35 ` [PATCH] git-push.txt: document the behavior of --repo Michael J Gruber
2015-01-27 19:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-01-27 22:07 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-01-28 16:20 ` Prem Muthedath
2015-01-28 20:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-01-28 20:30 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-01-28 20:55 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqsieufwv5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@drmicha.warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prem.muthedath@gmail.com \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.