Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"

From: Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com>
Date: Dec 8, 2025, 14:29 UTC
Message-ID: <877buxvygi.fsf@iotcl.com>
In-Reply-To: <d2a72ba5-ac7c-490f-9f2c-6cf849e65180@app.fastmail.com>

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

>>> Explicitly say that conflicts do not give any output. I found this a
>>> bit confusing with the current doc since I am used to other commands
>>> complaining loudly.

Yeah I agree it's unusual, and I'm considering to submit patches to change that behavior. But for now, thanks for adding these docs changes.

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2025, at 22:58, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> All looked sensible.
>>
>> The second one looked a bit sketchy, but that was the phrase used by
>> the log message for c4611130 (replay: add --contained to rebase
>> contained branches, 2023-11-24).
>
> How should `--contained` be documented?

I understand it might sound a bit cryptic, if you don't have any prior knowledge about this command. But on the other hand, I don't have any good idea how you can document this in more detail. I think it's fine like this.

Overall, I agree with these changes.

-- 
Cheers,
Toon