Re: [PATCH] Replace "git-" with "git " in *.[ch] comments and notifications

> Heikki Orsila <heikki.orsila@iki.fi> writes:
> 
> > diff --git a/archive.c b/archive.c
> > index e2280df..042f587 100644
> > --- a/archive.c
> > +++ b/archive.c
> > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int parse_archive_args(int argc, const char **argv,
> >  		OPT_STRING(0, "remote", &remote, "repo",
> >  			"retrieve the archive from remote repository <repo>"),
> >  		OPT_STRING(0, "exec", &exec, "cmd",
> > -			"path to the remote git-upload-archive command"),
> > +			"path to the remote git upload-archive command"),
> >  		OPT_END()
> >  	};
> 
> Are you sure about this one?  How would one spell the command line?
> 
> 	$ git archive --exec='/usr/local/bin/git upload-archive'
> 
> I somehow think this wouldn't fly well.
> 
> I do not think a single patch with the above hunk (which I think is a
> mistake) and other bits that are obviously good (e.g. the first hunk to
> builtin-apply.c we see below) is reviewable, but I cannot think of a
> better alterantive.  Sigh...

> > @@ -506,17 +506,17 @@ static char *gitdiff_verify_name(const char *line, int isnull, char *orig_name,
> >  		name = orig_name;
> >  		len = strlen(name);
> >  		if (isnull)
> > -			die("git-apply: bad git-diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr);
> > +			die("git apply: bad git diff - expected /dev/null, got %s on line %d", name, linenr);
> >  		another = find_name(line, NULL, p_value, TERM_TAB);
> >  		if (!another || memcmp(another, name, len))
> > -			die("git-apply: bad git-diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr);
> > +			die("git apply: bad git diff - inconsistent %s filename on line %d", oldnew, linenr);
> 
> I am not sure about this one.  This is not talking about the git-diff
> program, but about a variant of "diff" with git flavour (similar to the
> word "unified diff" -- there is no "unified" command with subcommand
> "diff").   So rolling this kind fo change into a topic that tries to get
> rid of "dashed form of commands" feels quite wrong, even though as a
> general wording improvement, I think it is better than the original (and I
> would even suggest rewording to "git patch", to make sure we are not
> talking about the "git-diff" program).