Re: [PATCH v9 11/11] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2014, 00:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20140402003938.GE6851@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140401192023.353.34477.chriscool@tuxfamily.org>

(culling cc list) Hi,

Christian Couder wrote:

> [Subject: Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers']
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>

This should be squashed into the patch that introduces the interpret-trailers command, IMHO (or if it should be reviewed separately, it can be an earlier patch). That way, someone looking at when the command was introduced and wanting to understand what it was originally meant to do has the information close by.

Thanks for picking up the 'git commit --fixes' topic and your steady work improving the series.

[...]

Show 23 quoted lines

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
> +git-interpret-trailers(1)
> +=========================
> +
> +NAME
> +----
> +git-interpret-trailers - help add stuctured information into commit messages
> +
> +SYNOPSIS
> +--------
> +[verse]
> +'git interpret-trailers' [--trim-empty] [(<token>[(=|:)<value>])...]
> +
> +DESCRIPTION
> +-----------
> +Help add RFC 822-like headers, called 'trailers', at the end of the
> +otherwise free-form part of a commit message.
> +
> +This command is a filter. It reads the standard input for a commit
> +message and applies the `token` arguments, if any, to this
> +message. The resulting message is emited on the standard output.

Do you have an example?  Does it work like this?

	$ git interpret-trailers 'signoff=Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>' <<EOF
	> foo bar baz qux
	> EOF
	foo bar baz qux

	Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
	$

A short EXAMPLES section could help.

If I am understanding it correctly, would a name like 'git add-trailers' work? How do I read back the trailers later?

[...]

> +By default, a 'token=value' or 'token:value' argument will be added
> +only if

Why support both '=' and ':'? Using just one would make it easier to grep through scripts to see who is adding signoffs.

Hope that helps, Jonathan