Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: call --start-after argument "marker"

From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2025, 14:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZR_ACey173CvkMPQ5DXwGKei+2L-JEWqGueX3NhDXk=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq349wy5hg.fsf@gitster.g>

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

Show 25 quoted lines

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> -		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("start-after"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>>> +		OPT_STRING(  0 , "start-after", &filter.start_after, N_("marker"), N_("start iteration after the provided marker")),
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah! I did fix a typo here, but your fix is better. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Here where?  Is that "fix a typo" something I should go around and
>>> make sure I do not miss?
>>
>> I meant my earlier patch fa0f4e46f5 (for-each-ref: reword the
>> documentation for '--start-after', 2025-07-28) which is merged to master
>> now.
>
> Hmph, so what does mentioning of your earlier typofix add to review
> of this new patch?  We should revert your earlier change and replace
> it with this one?  Or there were two typos, you fixed only one, and
> this patch ties a loose end left by it (but then that is not what
> I'd describe "yours is better", so I am still puzzled)?
>

I was referring to the fact that I made the change from "start-start" to "start-after", but "marker" would've been the better replacement, so my review was concluding that while I was here and made a change it still was lacking.

"yours is better" is poor choice of words.

> Thanks.