From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 06:45:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Teach git to change to a given directory using -C option
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTmVfrRWNfoqUGbZnf=GhozSnBB+rm1uuKAZRiRYHr7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEY4ZpN4xgt+gJSVeTfDNC--xt3N+M7vVLFBC7FTWBQtjvN8tw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Nazri Ramliy <ayiehere@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I do not care too deeply either way, but I am curious if there was a
>> reason why you changed the earlier <directory> to <path>?  Somehow,
>> when we _know_ a path has to be a directory, I find it easier on the
>> readers to spell that out, instead of saying "this is a path",
>> implying that it could be a directory, a regular file, or even
>> non-existent.
>
> Eric made me do it :). Personally I prefer the non-ambiguous "directory"
> over "path". In fact, "directory" is used in the error message spat out
> by git:
>
>     $ git --work-tree
>     No directory given for --work-tree.
>     ...
>
>     $ git --git-dir
>     No directory given for --git-dir.
>     ...
>     $
>
> I think changing "<path>" to "<directory>" wherever appropriate in
> git.txt would be an improvement. Tangent: <dir> is shorter but that
> might not be easy on the translators.

Such a terminology change is orthogonal to the patch adding -C
support, so if you do pursue it, the terminology change should be a
separate patch (either preparatory or follow-up to the -C patch).