From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:56:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP 1/2] Documentation: fix minor inconsistency
Message-ID: <49C7A326.2050403@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <vpq7i2g9u4m.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy venit, vidit, dixit 23.03.2009 15:44:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> While we don't always write out commands in full (`git command`) we
>> should do it consistently in adjacent paragraphs.
> 
>> -	If set to true or "refuse", receive-pack will deny a ref update
>> +	If set to true or "refuse", git-receive-pack will deny a ref update
> 
> Then, shouldn't this be `git receive-pack` ?

It should be git-receive-pack in the first patch (adding missing git in
the same style as used there), `git-receive-pack` in the second patch
(implementation of step 1) and `git receive-pack` in step 2 (the
un-dashifying step), which comes later, just as outlined in the cover
letter. Mixing these steps into one patch would be a reviewing
nightmare. Squashing those two patches (constituting step 1 for the
first few files) would be fine.

Michael