From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace "git-" with "git " in *.[ch] comments and notifications Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:56:58 -0700 Message-ID: <7vvdxj2ucl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080829234751.GA2396@zakalwe.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Heikki Orsila X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 30 03:01:53 2008 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 1KZEqe-000125-UB for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:01:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752726AbYH3A5G (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:57:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752673AbYH3A5F (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:57:05 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:44689 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752620AbYH3A5E (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:57:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAEC57B45; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [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 4A1BB57B44; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:57:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080829234751.GA2396@zakalwe.fi> (Heikki Orsila's message of "Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:47:51 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8EFC0A96-762E-11DD-A761-9EE598D589B0-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Heikki Orsila writes: > diff --git a/archive.c b/archive.c > index e2280df..042f587 100644 > --- a/archive.c > +++ b/archive.c > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int parse_archive_args(int argc, const char **argv, > OPT_STRING(0, "remote", &remote, "repo", > "retrieve the archive from remote repository "), > OPT_STRING(0, "exec", &exec, "cmd", > - "path to the remote git-upload-archive command"), > + "path to the remote git upload-archive command"), > OPT_END() > }; Are you sure about this one? How would one spell the command line? $ git archive --exec='/usr/local/bin/git upload-archive' I somehow think this wouldn't fly well. I do not think a single patch with the above hunk (which I think is a mistake) and other bits that are obviously good (e.g. the first hunk to builtin-apply.c we see below) is reviewable, but I cannot think of a better alterantive. Sigh... > diff --git a/builtin-apply.c b/builtin-apply.c > index 2216a0b..1e14904 100644 > --- a/builtin-apply.c > +++ b/builtin-apply.c > @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void say_patch_name(FILE *output, const char *pre, > static void read_patch_file(struct strbuf *sb, int fd) > { > if (strbuf_read(sb, fd, 0) < 0) > - die("git-apply: read returned %s", strerror(errno)); > + die("git apply: read returned %s", strerror(errno)); > > /* > * Make sure that we have some slop in the buffer Good. > @@ -506,17 +506,17 @@ static char *gitdiff_verify_name(const char *line, int isnull, char *orig_name, > name = orig_name; > len = strlen(name); > if (isnull) > - die("git-apply: bad git-diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr); > + die("git apply: bad git diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr); > another = find_name(line, NULL, p_value, TERM_TAB); > if (!another || memcmp(another, name, len)) > - die("git-apply: bad git-diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr); > + die("git apply: bad git diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr); I am not sure about this one. This is not talking about the git-diff program, but about a variant of "diff" with git flavour (similar to the word "unified diff" -- there is no "unified" command with subcommand "diff"). So rolling this kind fo change into a topic that tries to get rid of "dashed form of commands" feels quite wrong, even though as a general wording improvement, I think it is better than the original (and I would even suggest rewording to "git patch", to make sure we are not talking about the "git-diff" program). I did not look at the rest.