Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Keep all info in command-list.txt in git binary

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Apr 11, 2018, 22:06 UTC
Message-ID: <FBB059C530054EEAB2E989D86CBE3BD5@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTW7KRzXXY7vP-GZ23effYd5jLhiL15KqdRam4rNELCWw@mail.gmail.com>

From: "Eric Sunshine" <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Monday, April 09, 2018 6:17 
AM
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
<pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> This is pretty rough but I'd like to see how people feel about this
> first.
>
> I notice we have two places for command classification. One in
> command-list.txt, one in __git_list_porcelain_commands() in
> git-completion.bash. People who are following nd/parseopt-completion
> probably know that I'm try to reduce duplication in this script as
> much as possible, this is another step towards that.
>
> By keeping all information of command-list.txt in git binary, we could
> provide the porcelain list to git-completion.bash via "git
> --list-cmds=porcelain", so we don't neeed a separate command
> classification in git-completion.bash anymore.

I like the direction this series is taking.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Because we have all command synopsis as a side effect, we could
> now support "git help -a --verbose" which prints something like "git
> help", a command name and a description, but we could do it for _all_
> recognized commands. This could help people look for a command even if
> we don't provide "git appropos".

Nice idea, and you practically get this for free (aside from the the obvious new code) since generate-cmdlist.sh already plucks the summary for each command directly from Documentation/git-*.txt.

I'm only just catching up, but does/can this series also capture the non-command guides that are available in git so that the 'git help -g' can begin to list them all?

It was something I looked at some years ago (when I added the -g option) but at the time the idea of updating the command-list.txt was too invasive.

Just a thought.

Philip