From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: Should "git apply --check" imply verbose? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:15:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20130820151554.6afbcb7f@gandalf.local.home> References: <5213873A.6010003@windriver.com> <5213B95D.3040409@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paul Gortmaker , , Linus Torvalds To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 20 21:16:07 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VBrPN-0004zh-2G for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:16:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751365Ab3HTTP5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:15:57 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:7209 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751217Ab3HTTP4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:15:56 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=KJ7Y/S5o c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=JcweFNKryUAA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=psXsv1EI8KAA:10 a=ybZZDoGAAAAA:8 a=t7CeM3EgAAAA:8 a=FM-c_rLgVo3zbo-D5b8A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=qIVjreYYsbEA:10 a=2e6ZYRoF4I4A:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Received: from [67.255.60.225] ([67.255.60.225:51288] helo=gandalf.local.home) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id C0/ED-02415-B60C3125; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:15:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:07:18 -0700 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Paul Gortmaker writes: > > > OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the > > documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the > > "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour? If that > > had existed, I'd have not gone rummaging around in the source, so > > that should be good enough to help others avoid the same... > > I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people > who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works. Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch. Why would you think it would not be a good idea to assume that people would not be familiar with how GNU patch works? Is it because you expect "git apply" to eventually replace patch all out, and want no dependencies on its knowledge? -- Steve > > But I do agree that the description of -v, --verbose has a lot of > room for improvement. > > Report progress to stderr. By default, only a message about the > current patch being applied will be printed. This option will cause > additional information to be reported. > > It is totally unclear what "additional information" is reported at > all. > > Thanks.