From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Docs: send-email: Man page option ordering Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20080929003636.GA18552@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1222564196-84202-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@mit.edu> <200809290210.33880.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael Witten , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 29 02:44:28 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Kk6sE-00041E-BG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:44:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752992AbYI2Agk (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752982AbYI2Agk (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:40 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:1616 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752969AbYI2Agk (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 20229 invoked by uid 111); 29 Sep 2008 00:36:37 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:37 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809290210.33880.jnareb@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:10:31AM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: > peff> The manpage, on the other hand, is a comprehensive reference > peff> and so should probably be alphabetized for easy reading. > > [...] > > Second, large manpages with large number of options are usually divided > into sections, see git-rev-list(1) manpage, or rpmbuild(8) manpage. So > there is precedent for that. And I think it is good precedent. I am not opposed to dividing it into sections, with options alphabetized in each section, as long as the section divisions make sense (e.g., in rev-list, an obvious section is "commit formatting options"). I just didn't think we had enough here to bother subdividing. Either way will be in improvement on the current status, which is apparently random (it looks like it was probably alphabetized at one point, and then new options were added to the end). -Peff