From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Should "git apply --check" imply verbose? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:45:03 -0700 Message-ID: <7v7gfgkuyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <5213873A.6010003@windriver.com> <5213B95D.3040409@windriver.com> <20130820151554.6afbcb7f@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Paul Gortmaker , , Linus Torvalds To: Steven Rostedt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 20 21:45:21 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 1VBrre-0007C0-R5 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:45:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751256Ab3HTTpI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:45:08 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:47532 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045Ab3HTTpG (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:45:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0799A3A1D1; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:45:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cadJLJeVHMmToA63vfBCXM4NeBY=; b=aS5tRC tbrclVGPV0zJR/Rns5v4dWKoQ1QuoEpachf09bvGPYfdl4ms9NZeVgAUE81lDjDR 1V8saKjTZtfULggr/cLYUKhcKhweX66N3OrPPjo5nPOe4ML9xocZG24Iu/CGDLEB n7OlWtgR6b65OvptU0WJ0UmXivPoKv/iW6CBo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Dq4kI0IE1YgSocY6A61zPue3sb2ACjan 01WeC1Ewhg4DlqPG4yxI/sBHPJ/Jg7aADZZWpK0luh7FJXlk80itqRZ4EVzeAdal Nk9xPl28Uo5zUzXTJj5X1sVJMasu69wzo9OvPWKqntkd6gkaga+71Ke4StB3vcch v//5mEMoqOM= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDB43A1CF; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [50.161.4.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24A2C3A1CA; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <20130820151554.6afbcb7f@gandalf.local.home> (Steven Rostedt's message of "Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:15:54 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 02D4FCA8-09D1-11E3-8D08-CA9B8506CD1E-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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". >> 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?