Re: git-reset man page
- From
- Drew Northup <n1xim.email@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 18, 2012, 16:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAM9Z-nkon5ZtPuqxL0HZPr1es9DSpLA+70++hYpTR4D7WTxbUA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20121110204633.GA29363@shrek.podlesie.net>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:02:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> writes: >> >> > Maybe we should just add that <paths> is an shortcut for <pathspec> >> > and fix places where paths and pathspec are mixed or <path> is used as >> > <pathspec>. >> >> We should unify uses of <paths> and <path> (the former should be >> <path>... or something). > > Currently in most cases "<paths>..." is used ;)
> So we should always use "<path>" for exact path, and "<pathspec>" for > pathspecs patterns as defined in gitglossary. I think it's better > to avoid "<paths>" and always use "<path>..." or "<pathspec>..."
I suspect that the only reason why the differentiation between "<path>" and "<paths>" happened is because there may be some places where it was seen that a _list of paths_ was acceptable (which isn't a pathspec, as it isn't a search expression) and other places where _only_ a single path was acceptable. Should that fail to be the case then there would be a good argument for changing the affected instances of "<paths>" to "<path>" in the documentation. (I know of no other good way to pluralize "<path>" myself.)
-- -Drew Northup -------------------------------------------------------------- "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59