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 15:54:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20130820155433.217abb3e@gandalf.local.home> References: <5213873A.6010003@windriver.com> <5213B95D.3040409@windriver.com> <20130820151554.6afbcb7f@gandalf.local.home> <7v7gfgkuyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 21:54:41 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 1VBs0k-0004Wa-Sz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:54:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751484Ab3HTTyf (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:54:35 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:20029 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751188Ab3HTTye (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:54:34 -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=vPuw9uf5z3gcY_m_7O4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=qIVjreYYsbEA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Received: from [67.255.60.225] ([67.255.60.225:52644] helo=gandalf.local.home) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 5E/82-02415-979C3125; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:54:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <7v7gfgkuyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 12:45:03 -0700 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Steven Rostedt writes: > > >> 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? > > The audience of Git these days are far more widely spread than the > kernel circle. I am not opposed to _helping_ those who happen to > know "patch", but I was against a description that assumes readers > know it, i.e. making it a requirement to know "patch" to understand > "apply". Patch is used by much more than just the kernel folks ;-) I've been using patch much longer than I've been doing kernel development. > > >> 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. > > In other words, your enhancement to the documentation could go like: > > ... By default, ... With this option, you will additionally > see such and such and such in the output (this is similar to > what "patch --dry-run" would give you). See the EXAMPLES > section to get a feel of how it looks like. > > and I would not be opposed, as long as "such and such and such" are > written in such a way that the reader does not have to have a prior > experience with GNU patch in order to understand it. > > Clear? Looks good to me. Paul, what do you think? Thanks, -- Steve