From: Drew Northup <n1xim.email@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:55:09 GMT
Subject: Re: git-reset man page
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:
> 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