Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 16, 2025, 14:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <df29f24b-f545-47d1-ba4e-9ef25f01934e@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqa4zj6zhv.fsf@gitster.g>
On 16/12/2025 00:29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 40 quoted lines
> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes: >> >> Thank you. But I’m not glad that the commit message is not clear. I >> would need some guidance on how to write it because it seems clear to >> me. Something with my brain state I guess. > > commit 03d7c9c457ba68f28269dcd607b9026ea6c6c9c8 > Author: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> > Date: Sat Dec 13 14:46:57 2025 +0100 > > replay: improve --contained and add to doc > > There is no documentation for `--contained`. > > Start by copying the text from `replay_options` in `builtin/ > replay.c`. But some people think that the existing text is a > bit unclear; what does it mean for a branch to be contained > in a revision range? Let’s include the implied commits here: > the branches that point at commits in the range. > > Also use “update” instead of “advance”. “Update” is the verb > commonly used in this context. > > Helped-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> > Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > > As to the title, "improve --contained" hinted me there is some code > changes for behaviour, but there isn't, so that part may have been a > bit misleading. "improve short-help of --contained and add to doc", > perhaps. > > I think the problem people found in the second paragraph is because > it is so unclear what it is talking about if you read it without > looking at the patch text. You started from the existing "advance > all branches contained in revision-range", taken from the existing > short-help in replay_options[]. But without seeing that "branches > contained" text, it is natural that readers find it hard to judge > the validity of "But some people think that..." claim themselves.
That's a good summary of what I found confusing. I like you suggested message below but I agree it is not worth messing with it now it is in next.
Thanks
Phillip
Show 33 quoted lines
> If I were writing this (but I will not rewind 'next' to do so), > I'd say something like: > > replay: improve the help of the `--contained` option and document it > > "git replay -h" explains "--contained" as > > advance all branches contained in revision-range > > but it may be unclear when exactly a branch is contained in a > revision range. Because the command updates a branch that > points at a commit that gets rewritten to point at the result of > the rewrite, "update branches that point at commits in the > range" says what we want to say more clearly and concisely. > > The "--contained" option has no description in "git replay" > documentation. Use the improved phrase there, too. > > probably. In any case, it is a good exercise to see if the proposed > log message can be easily understood without looking at the code > change. > > > commit 9ba08b30a117e6925a9e5e87c92b37de7396d3a4 > Author: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> > Date: Sat Dec 13 14:46:58 2025 +0100 > > doc: replay: link section using markup > > Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > > Looking good.