From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:33:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] Remove cmd_usage() routine and re-organize the help/usage code.
Message-ID: <7vslkdnmra.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <000101c6b72a$51601a80$c47eedc1@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>

"Ramsay Jones" <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Speaking of consistency, I noticed some inconsistent command
> names in various usage strings. I attach a patch (p0011.txt)
> for your consideration.

Thanks, all look good.

> During one of my "grep-fests", I also noticed some calls to
> die(usage_string) rather than usage(usage_string). Calling die()
> rather than usage() means that a "fatal: " (rather than "usage: ")
> prefix is output prior the usage string, and the exit code
> is 128 (rather than 129).
>
> It looks like to choice of die() was deliberate, particularly in
> builtin-rm.c and hash-object.c since they call both die() and
> usage(). However, It's not clear to me why this choice was made.
> (Which is not to say there isn't a perfectly good reason for the
> choice; it's just that I don't see it.)

I think these were all sloppy coding.  The fix you did with
p0012 look good -- all of them are complaining that the command
line parsing found something unexpected, so I think usage() is
more appropriate.