Re: [PATCH 2/2] ls-tree: migrate to parse-options
- From
Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 18, 2009, 23:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a4c8a6d00911181510y66338536wb4b51b0df4788e76@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7veinvcw7w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Stephen Boyd <bebarino@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ static int chomp_prefix;
>>> static const char *ls_tree_prefix;
>>> static const char * const ls_tree_usage[] = {
>>> - "git ls-tree [-d] [-r] [-t] [-l | --long] [-z] [--name-only] [--name-status] [--full-name] [--full-tree] [--abbrev[=<n>]] <tree-ish> [path...]",
>>> + "git ls-tree <options> <tree-ish> [path...]",
>>> NULL
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> Is it [<options>] or [<options>...] or <options> or even
>> <options>... though?
>
> Output from "git grep -e '<option' -- '*.c'" indicates that it
> should be "[<options>]"; thanks for spotting.$ git grep -e '<option' -- '*.c' | wc -l 4
$ git grep -e '\[options' -- '*.c' | wc -l 42
$ git grep -e '\[<options' -- '*.c' | wc -l 2
Shouldn't be just "[options]"?