From: Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:41:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Meta-variable naming convention in documentation
Message-ID: <ca433831002261841i2b0edab6nf1a6e9170c3ba3c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca433831002261451k3164d413y77d4989239862f30@mail.gmail.com>

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