[PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[René Scharfe]

dabecb9db2 (for-each-ref: introduce a '--start-after' option,
2025-07-15) added the option --start-after and referred to its argument
as "marker" in documentation and usage string, but not in the option's
short help.  Use "marker" there as well for consistency and brevity.

Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
---
 builtin/for-each-ref.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/for-each-ref.c b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
index 8b5fe7b65e..222637a2c0 100644
--- a/builtin/for-each-ref.c
+++ b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ int cmd_for_each_ref(int argc,
 		OPT_GROUP(""),
 		OPT_INTEGER( 0 , "count", &format.array_opts.max_count, N_("show only <n> matched refs")),
 		OPT_STRING(  0 , "format", &format.format, N_("format"), N_("format to use for the output")),
-		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
+		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
 		OPT__COLOR(&format.use_color, N_("respect format colors")),
 		OPT_REF_FILTER_EXCLUDE(&filter),
 		OPT_REF_SORT(&sorting_options),
-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Junio C Hamano]

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

> dabecb9db2 (for-each-ref: introduce a '--start-after' option,
> 2025-07-15) added the option --start-after and referred to its argument
> as "marker" in documentation and usage string, but not in the option's
> short help.  Use "marker" there as well for consistency and brevity.

Great.  Nobody seems to have noticed it (including me X-<) primarily
because the command is still listed in t/0450/adoc-help-mismatches
file.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Karthik Nayak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1384 bytes --]

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

> dabecb9db2 (for-each-ref: introduce a '--start-after' option,
> 2025-07-15) added the option --start-after and referred to its argument
> as "marker" in documentation and usage string, but not in the option's
> short help.  Use "marker" there as well for consistency and brevity.
>
> Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
> ---
>  builtin/for-each-ref.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/for-each-ref.c b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
> index 8b5fe7b65e..222637a2c0 100644
> --- a/builtin/for-each-ref.c
> +++ b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ int cmd_for_each_ref(int argc,
>  		OPT_GROUP(""),
>  		OPT_INTEGER( 0 , "count", &format.array_opts.max_count, N_("show only <n> matched refs")),
>  		OPT_STRING(  0 , "format", &format.format, N_("format"), N_("format to use for the output")),
> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>

Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.

>  		OPT__COLOR(&format.use_color, N_("respect format colors")),
>  		OPT_REF_FILTER_EXCLUDE(&filter),
>  		OPT_REF_SORT(&sorting_options),
> --
> 2.50.1

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

>> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>
>
> Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.

Here where?  Is that "fix a typo" something I should go around and
make sure I do not miss?

Thanks.

>
>>  		OPT__COLOR(&format.use_color, N_("respect format colors")),
>>  		OPT_REF_FILTER_EXCLUDE(&filter),
>>  		OPT_REF_SORT(&sorting_options),
>> --
>> 2.50.1

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Karthik Nayak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>
>>
>> Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.
>
> Here where?  Is that "fix a typo" something I should go around and
> make sure I do not miss?
>

I meant my earlier patch fa0f4e46f5 (for-each-ref: reword the
documentation for '--start-after', 2025-07-28) which is merged to master
now.


> Thanks.
>
>>
>>>  		OPT__COLOR(&format.use_color, N_("respect format colors")),
>>>  		OPT_REF_FILTER_EXCLUDE(&filter),
>>>  		OPT_REF_SORT(&sorting_options),
>>> --
>>> 2.50.1

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.
>>
>> Here where?  Is that "fix a typo" something I should go around and
>> make sure I do not miss?
>
> I meant my earlier patch fa0f4e46f5 (for-each-ref: reword the
> documentation for '--start-after', 2025-07-28) which is merged to master
> now.

Hmph, so what does mentioning of your earlier typofix add to review
of this new patch?  We should revert your earlier change and replace
it with this one?  Or there were two typos, you fixed only one, and 
this patch ties a loose end left by it (but then that is not what
I'd describe "yours is better", so I am still puzzled)?

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Karthik Nayak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>>> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Here where?  Is that "fix a typo" something I should go around and
>>> make sure I do not miss?
>>
>> I meant my earlier patch fa0f4e46f5 (for-each-ref: reword the
>> documentation for '--start-after', 2025-07-28) which is merged to master
>> now.
>
> Hmph, so what does mentioning of your earlier typofix add to review
> of this new patch?  We should revert your earlier change and replace
> it with this one?  Or there were two typos, you fixed only one, and
> this patch ties a loose end left by it (but then that is not what
> I'd describe "yours is better", so I am still puzzled)?
>

I was referring to the fact that I made the change from "start-start" to
"start-after", but "marker" would've been the better replacement, so my
review was concluding that while I was here and made a change it still
was lacking.

"yours is better" is poor choice of words.

> Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

> I was referring to the fact that I made the change from "start-start" to
> "start-after", but "marker" would've been the better replacement, so my
> review was concluding that while I was here and made a change it still
> was lacking.

Thanks for clarifying and unconfusing me ;-)