Re: [PATCH] git-gc: improve wording of --auto notification

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Oct 19, 2007, 01:24 UTC
Message-ID: <20071019012430.GT14735@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071019011211.GC3290@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Shawn said:
> > A patch against spearce/master to revert the prior message and insert
> > something that is perhaps more reasonable would be most appreciated.
> 
> Geez, you really _are_ the maintainer now, prodding your minions to
> write trivial patches for you. :)

Heh. But didn't I just post a different trivial patch to the mailing list not 15 minutes ago? :-)

> I don't see any point in reverting the
> other patch separately, since we can just improve the message.

I agree.  No point in pissing in the snow multiple times over a
simple language change.  I was perhaps a little too aggressive in
applying Steven's first patch.  Which I also now see git-am actually
split the From line incorrectly and doesn't actually show Steven's
name in the author field.  Arrgh.

> I tried not to use the word "avoid" since I think we don't want to imply
> that auto-gc sucks. It doesn't, but some people might prefer to run it
> manually, and we should let them know it's an option. I'm open to
> wording improvements.

I think what you have is many times better.  It doesn't tell the
user that they can prevent having this activate at the wrong time
by just running git-gc every so often, but if the message (and
the subsequent packing itself) is annoying they'll read the manual
entry and hopefully figure that out on their own.

>  		fprintf(stderr, "Packing your repository for optimum "
> +			"performance. You may also\n"
> +			"run \"git gc\" manually. See "
> +			"\"git help gc\" for more information.\n");

-- 
Shawn.