Re: [PATCH] doc: commit: link to git-status(1) on all format options

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 18, 2025, 09:09 UTC
Message-ID: <20251118090952.GA17717@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <c4349a03724.1763129061.git.code@khaugsbakk.name>

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 03:04:47PM +0100, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
> 
> `--branch` and `--long` refer to git-status(1) options but they don’t tell us
> what `short-format` and `long-format` are, respectively. And `--null`
> mentions “status” but does not link to the command.
> 
> Refer to git-config(1) on `--branch` like `--short` does.
> 
> `long-format` is the git-status(1) output. So we can just say that
> directly.
> 
> Replace “status” with a `linkgit` on `--null`.

Thanks, these all make sense to me.

Show 10 quoted lines

>     Cc Peff based on:
>     
>     • f3f47a1e (status: add --long output format option, 2012-10-18) did not
>       • Did not link to git-config(1)
>     link to git-config(1) even though the previous
>     • 7c9f7038 (commit: support alternate status formats, 2009-09-05)
>       • This older commit did
>     
>     I was going to mention these when I was only changing `--long` but the
>     scope expanded to the other two options.

Yeah, I don't think I had a particular reason to link in one commit but not the other. I can only say given the timestamps that I must have been young and impetuous.

-Peff