Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/git-merge: deprecated syntax moved to end

Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/git-merge: deprecated syntax moved to end

[jidanni]

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.

Signed-off-by: jidanni <jidanni@jidanni.org>
---
 Documentation/git-merge.txt |   12 ++++++------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
index a3ac828..e619c9f 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
@@ -11,18 +11,12 @@ SYNOPSIS
 [verse]
 'git merge' [-n] [--stat] [--no-commit] [--squash] [-s <strategy>]...
 	[-m <msg>] <remote>...
-'git merge' <msg> HEAD <remote>...
 
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
 This is the top-level interface to the merge machinery
 which drives multiple merge strategy scripts.
 
-The second syntax (<msg> `HEAD` <remote>) is supported for
-historical reasons.  Do not use it from the command line or in
-new scripts.  It is the same as `git merge -m <msg> <remote>`.
-
-
 OPTIONS
 -------
 include::merge-options.txt[]
@@ -211,6 +205,12 @@ You can work through the conflict with a number of tools:
    common ancestor, 'git show :2:filename' shows the HEAD
    version and 'git show :3:filename' shows the remote version.
 
+DEPRECATED SYNTAX
+-----------------
+There also as a `git merge <msg> HEAD <remote>...` syntax supported
+for historical reasons. Do not use it from the command line or in new
+scripts. It is the same as `git merge -m <msg> <remote>`.
+
 SEE ALSO
 --------
 linkgit:git-fmt-merge-msg[1], linkgit:git-pull[1],
-- 
1.6.0.6

Re: Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/git-merge: deprecated syntax moved to end

[Junio C Hamano]

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.