Junio C Hamano wrote:
> That is not a problem.
> [...]
> A more important reason to have them as separate entries is to avoid
> giving a wrong impression that "--" is somehow related to ,
Okay, makes sense then. Queue it for this and shortlog; we can write
it for the other manpages gradually.
--
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> I agree that the "confusion" paragraph after [--] [] can be
> improved, but putting [--] in a paragraph of its own sounds like an
> overkill. Apart from other things, it means that every single git
> command would need an identical [--] paragraph for consistency.
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> It should be more like this [*1*]:
>
> 'git log' [] [] [--] [...]
Agreed. The backslash is unnecessary (I suspect it's something
carried over from earlier versions of asciidoc requiring this
escaping).
> It may be better to split the item into two, keep the curren
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> In its current form, the note talks about separating options from
> "branch names" and "refnames" in the same sentence. This is entirely
> inaccurate, as need not be a set of branch names or
> ref names. Rewrite it to use the word "revision range", to be
> consis
In its current form, the note talks about separating options from
"branch names" and "refnames" in the same sentence. This is entirely
inaccurate, as need not be a set of branch names or
ref names. Rewrite it to use the word "revision range", to be
consistent with the SYNOPSIS.
Signed-off-by: R
5 matches
Mail list logo
