From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:06:27 GMT
Subject: Re: git-grep documentation
Message-ID: <7vzmlpo0y4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP031BAB23C3237DA15F88D3AE1E0@CEZ.ICE>

sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca> writes:

> So your new patch should also fix that comment to remove the 
> "(or flags)" portion.

Probably.

> Since you comment on the -- marker here I think it should
> also appear in the command line above:
>
> 'git-grep' [<option>...] [-e] <pattern> [--] [<path>...]

I've thought about this but it is not any more correct than what
we have now (both are technically incorrect).  If you do not use
an `-e` and let a non-option terminate the option processing,
double dashes are not removed, so you do not want it there.

> Instead it is more useful for them to be told _specificly_ which 
> git-ls-files options  are available and that all others will be 
> passed to grep.   Somthing like:

I like it.

> ...    Your patch fixes the problem case and 
> there is no reason now to warn the user away from supplying the --
> marker in addition to the "-e"; it'll work properly in either case.

Does it?  I think if you give -- without -e it will look for a
path that matches -- because we pass our own -- to ls-files.

> That's it and the rest looked good.  In case you agree with anything
> i've said here, find an amended version of your patch below.

Thanks.

When people make an improvement proposal, I'd often prefer to
see a patch that is on top of the patch being discussed, not a
replacement.