From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/git-merge: deprecated syntax moved to end Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:00:55 -0800 Message-ID: <7vsko2hhbs.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <87bpuqvpfz.fsf@jidanni.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: jidanni@jidanni.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 01 22:02:53 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LIUgc-0005rK-7D for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:02:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753275AbZAAVBE (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:01:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752943AbZAAVBD (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:01:03 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:51637 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752926AbZAAVBC (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:01:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0316E8C150; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9668C14F; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:00:57 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4AC94192-D847-11DD-B033-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: jidanni@jidanni.org writes: > Moving the deprecated syntax moved to the end of the document. > Or please at least stamp it *deprecated* in the SYNOPSIS, in case the > user reads no further down the page. To my mind, there is a difference between something being kept (and will be kept for foreseeable future), and something being deprecated (and eventual removal is at least contemplated). The original merge syntax falls into the first category, and the current description is correct and fine as-is. The wording "for historical reasons" does not refer to the reason why the second syntax is still kept. It merely refers to the reason why two syntaxes exist in the first place.