From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: Should "git apply --check" imply verbose? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:19:31 -0400 Message-ID: <5213CF53.5010306@windriver.com> References: <5213873A.6010003@windriver.com> <5213B95D.3040409@windriver.com> <20130820151554.6afbcb7f@gandalf.local.home> <7v7gfgkuyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130820155433.217abb3e@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , , Linus Torvalds To: Steven Rostedt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 21 02:52:38 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 1VBwf7-0005eg-GG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:52:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752023Ab3HUAwd (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:52:33 -0400 Received: from mail7.windriver.com ([128.224.252.3]:55344 "EHLO mail7.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926Ab3HUAwc (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:52:32 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 16220 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:52:31 EDT Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail7.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r7KKJOZM026637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.224.146.65] (128.224.146.65) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:24 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: <20130820155433.217abb3e@gandalf.local.home> X-Originating-IP: [128.224.146.65] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 13-08-20 03:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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? Yep, I'll write something up tomorrow which loosely matches the above. Thanks, Paul. -- > > Thanks, > > -- Steve >