Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 24, 2013, 06:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20130924061043.GA6678@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3QfkvXjgmhWPXN7qonbEPpvJFyVm82EBOMSjX7ng3OQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:57:36AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> No, I'm not. The users that know branch.*.remote exists know why it
> exists. The part where it is explained, 'git config --help', is
> perfectly clear: "When on branch <name>, it tells 'git fetch' and 'git
> push' which remote to fetch from/push to.". So what does
> branch.<name>.remote does, if not precisely what the documentation
> says?
> 
> This is not a rhetorical question, I'm actually expecting you to
> answer, if a user knows that branch.<name>.remote exists, how would
> the above confuse him?

I do not know if by "above" you mean the part of git-config.1 you quoted above, or the text you are proposing to put into git-fetch.1.

If the former, then I do not think it is confusing at all. The existing text explains exactly what is going on.

If the latter, then my concern is that the term "upstream branch" implies implies that "git fetch" depends on branch.*.merge, but it does not.

Show 6 quoted lines

> > I was hoping you might suggest something that can help both users by
> > being both precise and giving the appropriate breadcrumbs.
> 
> This is documentation for a Git porcelain command,
> branch.<name>.remote is an implementation detail, and it's irrelevant
> in the documentation at this level.

I don't think it is the end of the world if we say "upstream branch". I was hoping to find a term that could be both friendly and accurate.

And failing that, I hoped you might say "I see what you are saying, but I cannot think of a term that is more precise that does not sacrifice friendliness". But as I seem incapable of even communicating the issue to you, I'm giving up. It is not worth wasting more time on it.

-Peff