From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 15:52:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] git-fetch.txt: document fetch output
Message-ID: <CACsJy8Crt8d5QdwPP+-ATaseR=gGLb7ri0jOozR==_U0Z1u4YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <577A7FFB.6050507@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> W dniu 2016-07-04 o 17:17, Duy Nguyen pisze:
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> W dniu 2016-06-26 o 07:58, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pisze:
>>>> +summary::
>>>> +     For a successfully fetched ref, the summary shows the old and new
>>>> +     values of the ref in a form suitable for using as an argument to
>>>> +     `git log` (this is `<old>..<new>` in most cases, and
>>>> +     `<old>...<new>` for forced non-fast-forward updates).
>>>
>>> It would be nice to have documented here also other <summary> formats,
>>> like "[new branch]", and/or mention that if the <summary> is not usable
>>> for `git log` it is put in brackets [].
>>
>> Can I do it in a separate topic in future? We may want to unify this
>> and the output format in git-pull as well, then include fetch format
>> in git-pull.
>
> Yes, of course it can be added later.  Though it feels strange for docs
> to talk about <old>..<new> and <old>...<new> format only (note that it
> is also suitable for copy'n'paste to `git diff`, not only for `git log`)
> while having "[new branch]" in examples / later patches.

It's because it's copied from git-push.txt and not all
[<explaination>] are listed there either :) But I think you have
convinced me I should do it now.
-- 
Duy