On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Sebastian Schuberth
<sschube...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> I still agree that not listing all mergetools in multiple places is a
>>> good thing. But doing the whole stuff of extending --tool-help for
>>> git-mergetool and git-difftool to return a simple list that can be
>>> used in git-completion.bash etc. IMHO is a separate topic and out of
>>> scope of this patch.
>> Exactly.  If you know that is the long term direction, I would have
>> preferred you _not_ to touch any existing descriptions of the tools
>> (not even changing them to refer to "--tool-help") in this patch, in
>> order to avoid unnecessary conflicts with the topic of unifying the
>> list of tool backends, which can be written and cooked separately.
> To the the best of my knowledge there currently no such topic
> underway, and even if it was, it would be unclear how long it would
> take for integration. If I was not touching the existing descriptions
> of the tools, and a Git version was to be released after accepting my
> patch but before the --tool-help topic is merged, that would leave the
> documentation in a wrong state. I was just trying to be consistent by
> also touching the descriptions, which IMHO is the correct thing to do
> in the short term, as you yourself say the topic to make use of
> --tool-help is a long term goal.

Thanks Sebastian.

I think your patch would be good, so long as we leave the descriptions alone.

If you could please re-roll to add the new scriptlet without touching
the docs then that would be very helpful.

I have a separate patch to update the mergetool documentation
for --tool-help which I will send shortly.

I have another topic (--symlinks) in next upon which it is based.
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

Reply via email to