Re: [PATCH] git-commit.txt: Order options alphabetically

From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
Date: Dec 1, 2010, 23:02 UTC
Message-ID: <87aakpt7uw.fsf@picasso.cante.net>
In-Reply-To: <E02740CE-37EE-4701-BB2D-18AD493D1C05@sb.org>

2010-12-02 00:52 Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org>:

> On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Jari Aalto wrote:
>> What is the reason --reset-author is in that position? What
>
> It's entirely possible...

The reader have to guess "imagined groups"? Hm, that's interesting.

>> To me the git-pages do not look that professional...
>
> You seem overly concerned with the visual aesthetics and not at all with the
> actual content.

Humans read visually. It's built in. Distractions slow down. Try writing

    abcdef = 1
    x123.213.123..123. = 4
    sdaölkasd = 1

vs.

    abcdef              = 1
    x123.213.123..123.  = 4
    sdaölkasd           = 1

There is a reason why people like Excel cells. Not my invention.

Show 7 quoted lines

>> When the pages list options in alphabetical order, it doesn't take long
>> to compare commands: similarities and differences in options, or missing
>> options, or inconsistencies for that matter.
>
> Why would you compare commands like that? There's really no reason at all to
> believe that the -c flag for one command is even related to the -c flag for
> another command.

I take it you have written loads of software. The reasons come from standard Software Development and Quality auditions. Git's command line is inconsistent in many places and there is room for improvement. Documentation is one way to spot those.

And ther eis perfect reasons to, again, expect consistency on some level of command options to mean same thing

Like why some commands need number in:

    -n NUMBER

Whereas other's use:

    -NUMBER

Examples like that.

Jari