Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-04-02 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 04/02/2013 04:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Junio C Hamano writes: >>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use o

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-04-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user >>> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the >>> peeler here. Perhaps >>> ... >> >> A "SQUA

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-04-02 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user >> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the >> peeler here. Perhaps >> ... > > A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-04-01 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user > input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the > peeler here. Perhaps > ... A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original is queued on 'pu', together with the earlier "^{object}" p

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > ... Though honestly, I don't see the point of using > --default as opposed to > > $ git rev-parse --verify ${REV:-master}^{commit} I would agree ${VAR:-default} is sufficient in that particular case. The --default is more about the use of the pluming command not