Re: Meta-variable naming convention in documentation

On a similar note, what do you think about dropping the term <tree-ish> and just using <tree> everywhere? The only command that only accepts a <tree>, and not a <tree-ish>, is git-commit-tree. For example, `git commit-tree master' fails, but `git commit-tree master^{tree}' works. This can easily be written in the documentation, or the program can be fixed so it also accepts a <tree-ish> like everything else. (git-grep(1) uses the term <tree>, but this should be <tree-ish>.)

I imagine a similar thing can be done with <commit> vs <commit-ish> vs <committish>, but I haven't verified this. <commit-ish> is only used in git(1) and builtin-revert.c, and <committish> is only used in git-describe(1), git-fast-import(1), git-name-rev(1), git-shortlog(1), gitcli(1), and builtin-describe.c. I would guess that all the other commands that say <commit> really accept a <commit-ish>, but perhaps this is not true.

I also think <rev> should be replaced with <commit>, unless this means something different.

If you give the go-ahead, I'll work on a patch to do this.

Cheers, Mark