On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 05:51:09AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> John Keeping wrote:
>> I left the "Semantics of execution" options with the general options
>> since I couldn't think of a sensible heading
> Neat trick. :)
I took inspiration from git-pull(1), which has a few general options
followed by several "Options related to..." sections.
> > -- <8 --
> > The options in git-fast-import(1) are not currently arranged in a
> > logical order, which has caused the '--done' options to be documented
> > twice (commit 3266de10).
> > Rearrange them into logical groups under subheadings.
> Nice description.
> > While doing this, fix the duplicate '--done' documentation by taking the
> > best bits of each. Also combine the descriptions of '--relative-marks'
> > and '--no-relative-marks' since they make more sense together.
> I'd prefer to keep those as separate patches, if that's manageable.
I'll send a series of three patches if the discussion below seems
[1/3] remove duplicate '--done'
[2/3] combine --[no-]relative-marks
[3/3] reorganize options
> The organization you propose is:
> Options related to the input stream
> Options related to marks
> Options for tuning
> These headings are less cryptic than the ones I proposed, which is a
> nice thing.
> My only nitpicks:
> I'd worry that the catch-all toplevel category would grow larger
> and larger with time, since it's the obvious place to put any new
I agree that that's a concern, perhaps '--cat-blob-fd' should be
combined with '--date-format' and '--done' into a section called
"Options for frontends" or similar?
And maybe '--export-pack-edges' can move to the performance/compression
tuning section? I expect the interested audience would be the same.
That only leaves three options in that section, which seems more
> Part of what I tried to do with the proposed categorization was to
> separate options that change the semantics of the import (which one
> uses with "feature" when they are specified in the fast-import stream
> since ignoring them results in a broken import) from options that only
> change superficial aspects of the interface or the details of how the
> resulting packfiles representing the same objects get written.
> The phrasing of the name of the category "Options related to the input
> stream" is too broad. All options relate to the input stream, since
> consuming an input stream and acting on it is all fast-import does.
> Something more specific than "related to" and a mention of "syntax"
> could make it clearer --- how about something like "Input Syntax
> Likewise, lots of functionality is _related_ to marks, but the marks
> options are the options that specify marks files. I don't know a good
> way to say that --- maybe "Location of Marks Files"?
> "Options for Tuning" could also be made more specific --- e.g.,
> "Performance and Compression Tuning".
I realise it's personal taste, but I like the subheadings of the form
"Options (for|related to) ...", so maybe:
Options for input stream features
Options related to marks files
Options for performance and compression tuning
Note that I chose sentence case instead of title case to be consistent
> I like how you put important options like --force on top. Perhaps
> the less important --quiet and --stats could be split off from that
> into a subsection like "Verbosity" to make them stand out even more.
I quite like having the verbosity options near the top since those are
the ones that are most likely to be of interest to a user, whereas the
rest are likely to be prescribed by the frontend (or only really useful
to frontend authors).
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