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
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.
Looks good to me. Paul, what do you think?
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