From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan =?UTF-8?B?S3LDvGdlcg==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-commit.txt: Order options alphabetically Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:53:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20101202095324.34237fb2@jk.gs> References: <1291215526-11428-1-git-send-email-jari.aalto@cante.net> <20101201165043.GF26120@burratino> <87r5e1v2g8.fsf@picasso.cante.net> <7vzkspuw8g.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <295D1E95-1C61-4960-8C9C-BDB0BD4A1A50@sb.org> <87mxopt8my.fsf@picasso.cante.net> <87aakpt7uw.fsf@picasso.cante.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Ballard , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , Erik Faye-Lund , Jakub Narebski To: Jari Aalto X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 02 09:54:16 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PO4vf-00035N-1p for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:54:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755435Ab0LBIx3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:53:29 -0500 Received: from zoidberg.org ([88.198.6.61]:50938 "EHLO cthulhu.zoidberg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751823Ab0LBIx2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:53:28 -0500 Received: from jk.gs (p508A3604.dip.t-dialin.net [::ffff:80.138.54.4]) (AUTH: LOGIN jast, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by cthulhu.zoidberg.org with esmtp; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:53:26 +0100 id 0040044D.4CF75E86.00000821 In-Reply-To: <87aakpt7uw.fsf@picasso.cante.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.7 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: [Cc un-culled] --- Jari Aalto wrote: > The reader have to guess "imagined groups"? Hm, that's interesting. Perhaps a more desirable (and agreeable) patch would introduce group subheadings, then? I agree with the majority of people who chimed in here that functional grouping is a good thing. Perhaps we should actually commit to that by having explicit groups. In rev-list-related options we already have a couple of explicit groups. I think I'd go insane if I ever had to find anything in there without those groups. > [...] Git's command > line is inconsistent in many places and there is room for improvement. > Documentation is one way to spot those. That seems to be the only reason you've brought forward for alphabetic sorting, except the claim that "people read from top to bottom" (which is essentially true, but I don't think anybody would read, say, a printed dictionary all the way through; the alphabetic ordering there is for being able to index/search the content in the absence of another way to index/search). In any case, the end user will probably be more often interested in appropriately grouped options than in being able to easily find inconsistencies between various commands. -Jan