From: Sébastien Guimmara Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 20:26:22 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] git help: group common commands by theme Message-ID: <554A78EE.1040002@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 05/06/2015 05:08 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Sébastien Guimmara > wrote: >> This v4 includes the following suggestions: >> >> In command-list.txt: >> - Add a [groups] block containing names and description for groups: >> >> [groups] >> init starting a working area >> worktree working on the current change >> remote working with others >> info examining the history and state >> history growing, marking and tweaking your history >> >> - Add a [commands] header on top of the known command list, and >> group names as a third column. >> >> [commands] >> git-add mainporcelain common-worktree >> git-am mainporcelain >> git-annotate ancillaryinterrogators >> git-apply plumbingmanipulators >> git-archimport foreignscminterface >> git-archive mainporcelain >> git-bisect mainporcelain >> git-blame ancillaryinterrogators >> git-branch mainporcelain common-history > > Thanks, this version is looking better. I, personally, still find the > redundant "command-" prefix ugly and would just as soon see it go > away. I'll make some suggestions about that when reviewing patch 2/3. Indeed, I'm a bit annoyed by this prefix. We could do two things: - either drop the [deprecated] options, since it's never used. - or keep it, but make it exclusive with [common]. It makes sense after all that if a command is deprecated, we don't want to consider it common anymore. In both cases, we end up with only three columns, the third being optional. The common- prefix can then be removed in favor of the group ID alone. >> I removed from the list of common commands: rebase, rm, mv, bisect >> because [1] they are not really common to an unfamiliar user, [2] to >> save vertical space occupied by group headers. > > Please perform the removals in a separate (preparatory) patch. Not > only is it difficult to spot the removals mixed in with the primary > changes of 1/3, but they are not even mentioned in the commit message > of that patch. More generally, the removals are a logically distinct > change from assigning groupings to the common commands, thus deserve > their own patch. > Thanks. I will separate both patches.