On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:45:03 -0700 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> writes: > > >> I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people > >> who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works. > > > > Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch. > > Why would you think it would not be a good idea to assume that people > > would not be familiar with how GNU patch works? > > The audience of Git these days are far more widely spread than the > kernel circle. I am not opposed to _helping_ those who happen to > know "patch", but I was against a description that assumes readers > know it, i.e. making it a requirement to know "patch" to understand > "apply". Patch is used by much more than just the kernel folks ;-) I've been using patch much longer than I've been doing kernel development. > > >> But I do agree that the description of -v, --verbose has a lot of > >> room for improvement. > >> > >> Report progress to stderr. By default, only a message about the > >> current patch being applied will be printed. This option will cause > >> additional information to be reported. > >> > >> It is totally unclear what "additional information" is reported at > >> all. > > In other words, your enhancement to the documentation could go like: > > ... By default, ... With this option, you will additionally > see such and such and such in the output (this is similar to > what "patch --dry-run" would give you). See the EXAMPLES > section to get a feel of how it looks like. > > and I would not be opposed, as long as "such and such and such" are > written in such a way that the reader does not have to have a prior > experience with GNU patch in order to understand it. > > Clear? Looks good to me. Paul, what do you think? Thanks, -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
