Re: [PATCH] pretty-options.txt: fix --no-abbrev-commit description

From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2020, 21:55 UTC
Message-ID: <87pn7d9inu.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv9h5uw7u.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>  --no-abbrev-commit::
>>  	Show the full 40-byte hexadecimal commit object name. This negates
>> -	`--abbrev-commit` and those options which imply it such as
>> -	"--oneline". It also overrides the `log.abbrevCommit` variable.
>> +	`--abbrev-commit`, either explicit or implied by other options such
>> +	as "--oneline". It also overrides the `log.abbrevCommit` variable.
>
> I personally do not think it would be crazy to misread that one-line
> format itself would be defeated when no abbreviation of object names
> is requested, so from that point of view, the original text would be
> OK enough,

Well, I don't think it's OK to essentially say:

  "--no-abbrev-commit" negates "--oneline"

when it doesn't. Yes, I even actually checked it doesn't, just in case.

> but as long as the updated text is easier to understand,
> that is fine ;-)

Admittedly, not being a native speaker, I'm not sure the form I used is a good English, but at least it's factually correct.

Actually, I'd drop it altogether, to read like this:

--no-abbrev-commit::
	Show the full 40-byte hexadecimal commit object name. This negates
	`--abbrev-commit` as well as overrides the `log.abbrevCommit` variable.

as I don't see why such clarification is at all needed in the first place.

I'll re-roll if you agree this variant is better.

Show 8 quoted lines

>
> Keeping the original sentence structure, e.g.
>
>     ... and those options which imply abbreviating commit object names
>     such as ...
>
> would have been what I wrote, instead of "either explicit or implied
> by", though.

Sorry, but it'd then read:

  This negates `--abbrev-commit` and those options which imply
  abbreviating commit object names such as "--oneline".

that again essentially reduces to:

  This negates "--oneline"

that is simply false statement, being exactly the problem of the original that the patch tries to fix.

Thanks, -- Sergey