Re: [PATCH 3/4] git-commit-graph.txt: refer to "*commit* graph file"
- From
- Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 20, 2018, 13:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAN0heSo89WS69VXuPp02nQizordMWgNG0D0o-f-tm02Tp_gGEw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <38803edb-de41-90db-33f6-f1a0d5344608@gmail.com>
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 14:50, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > On 9/19/2018 12:30 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > > The full name, by the way, is not the "commit-graph file" with a dash, > > cf. the synopsis. Use the dashless form. (The next commit will fix the > > remaining few instances of the "commit-graph file" in this document.) > > The file is literally at ".git/objects/info/commit-graph" which is why I > tried to use "commit-graph" everywhere. Why do you think that "commit > graph" is better?
I noticed the discrepancy between "commit graph file" and "commit-graph file" and briefly wondered if it was intentional, i.e., if it meant anything, but the dash vs no dash seemed pretty random to me. In order to figure out which was (more) correct, I went to the synopsis. But admittedly, that was quite arbitrary. For all I know, "the commit-graph file" could be the better choice, grammatically.
There is the file named "commit-graph" as you note, but it might on the other hand just as well be called "cg.bin". I would probably try to let the filename "commit-graph" influence the user manual only if we would have written "cg.bin" instead. For example, if we would talk about how you might get out of a hole by deleting the "<...>/commit-graph" ("cg.bin") file manually.
But that's certainly not to argue against "the commit-graph file". I'd be happy to s/commit graph file/commit-graph file/g instead to keep others from wondering if these are two slightly different things. And if the concept and the file have the same name, all the better.
If you agree, I'll do that in a v2, where I will also note in the Options section that `--object-dir` takes a `<dir>`.
Martin