Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> 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".
>> 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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
