From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "rev-parse: remove restrictions on some options" Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20160229212943.GA25342@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160226232507.GA9404@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160226232957.GB9552@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160226233449.GA9622@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160229110156.GA29697@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty , John Keeping To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 29 22:29:51 2016 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 1aaVO2-0006N4-U8 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:29:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751979AbcB2V3r (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:47 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51754 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750993AbcB2V3q (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 9371 invoked by uid 102); 29 Feb 2016 21:29:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 31257 invoked by uid 107); 29 Feb 2016 21:29:56 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:56 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:32:22AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > IOW, I think my 2/2 should be replaced with this: > > This looks sensible. > > Don't we still want the documentation updates from the previous 2/2? I don't think so. They were primarily about moving those option blocks to the "these options must come first..." section, which is no longer true. It also added "you don't have to be in a git repository for these" to that section, but I think that is less important. We could add that individually to each option, I guess. -Peff