From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Cc: "Phillip Wood" <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
"Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
"Siddharth Asthana" <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:29:00 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa4zj6zhv.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf3f3633-5d0d-4fa4-9706-d99e32a3f91d@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2025 12:59:07 +0100")
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025, at 11:13, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> On 13/12/2025 13:46, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
>>>
>>> Explicitly say that conflicts do not give any output. I found this a bit
>>> confusing with the current doc since I am used to other commands
>>> complaining loudly.
>>>
>>> § Changes in v2
>>>
>>> Patch 2/3: improve `--contained` and mention that it requires `--onto`.
>>
>> The new text looks good, I don't really understand the commit message
>> but the intent of the change is clear enough.
>>
>> Thanks for improving the documentation
>
> Thank you. But I’m not glad that the commit message is not clear. I
> would need some guidance on how to write it because it seems clear to
> me. Something with my brain state I guess.
They are already in 'next', but let's see if there are pain points.
commit 8467c95419acaa826a6c1ca0db0f36a3fd614ae4
Author: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Sat Dec 13 14:46:56 2025 +0100
doc: replay: mention no output on conflicts
Some commands will produce output on stderr if there are conflicts, but
git-replay(1) is completely silent. Explicitly spell that out.
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Looks clear enough to me.
commit 03d7c9c457ba68f28269dcd607b9026ea6c6c9c8
Author: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Sat Dec 13 14:46:57 2025 +0100
replay: improve --contained and add to doc
There is no documentation for `--contained`.
Start by copying the text from `replay_options` in `builtin/
replay.c`. But some people think that the existing text is a
bit unclear; what does it mean for a branch to be contained
in a revision range? Let’s include the implied commits here:
the branches that point at commits in the range.
Also use “update” instead of “advance”. “Update” is the verb
commonly used in this context.
Helped-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As to the title, "improve --contained" hinted me there is some code
changes for behaviour, but there isn't, so that part may have been a
bit misleading. "improve short-help of --contained and add to doc",
perhaps.
I think the problem people found in the second paragraph is because
it is so unclear what it is talking about if you read it without
looking at the patch text. You started from the existing "advance
all branches contained in revision-range", taken from the existing
short-help in replay_options[]. But without seeing that "branches
contained" text, it is natural that readers find it hard to judge
the validity of "But some people think that..." claim themselves.
If I were writing this (but I will not rewind 'next' to do so),
I'd say something like:
replay: improve the help of the `--contained` option and document it
"git replay -h" explains "--contained" as
advance all branches contained in revision-range
but it may be unclear when exactly a branch is contained in a
revision range. Because the command updates a branch that
points at a commit that gets rewritten to point at the result of
the rewrite, "update branches that point at commits in the
range" says what we want to say more clearly and concisely.
The "--contained" option has no description in "git replay"
documentation. Use the improved phrase there, too.
probably. In any case, it is a good exercise to see if the proposed
log message can be easily understood without looking at the code
change.
commit 9ba08b30a117e6925a9e5e87c92b37de7396d3a4
Author: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Sat Dec 13 14:46:58 2025 +0100
doc: replay: link section using markup
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Looking good.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-16 0:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-07 17:55 [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] doc: replay: mention no output on conflicts kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] doc: replay: document --contained kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc: replay: link section using markup kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 21:58 ` [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" Junio C Hamano
2025-12-08 7:28 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-08 12:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-09 18:05 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-09 23:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-08 14:29 ` Toon Claes
2025-12-08 14:35 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-08 16:00 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-09 18:03 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-09 22:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-10 9:51 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-10 11:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-10 12:04 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-10 14:14 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-10 15:40 ` Elijah Newren
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 " kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] doc: replay: mention no output on conflicts kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] replay: improve --contained and add to doc kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] doc: replay: link section using markup kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-15 10:13 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" Phillip Wood
2025-12-15 11:59 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-16 0:29 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2025-12-16 14:25 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-20 19:34 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqa4zj6zhv.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
--cc=siddharthasthana31@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).