Re: [PATCH 2/2] document new flags
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 30, 2009, 08:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m38wkfatqc.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <1243647555-25098-2-git-send-email-user@lamp>
Jeff Epler <unpythonic.net@unpythonic.net> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> From: Jeff Epler <jepler@unpythonic.net> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Epler <jepler@unpythonic.net> > --- > Documentation/git-cherry.txt | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Why split this patch in two? It is better to have new feature and documentation together, I think.
Show 20 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt > index 7deefda..100ed69 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ git-cherry - Find commits not merged upstream > > SYNOPSIS > -------- > -'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]] > +'git cherry' [-v] [-a|-#] [-r] [-d|-D] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]] > > DESCRIPTION > ----------- > @@ -49,6 +49,18 @@ OPTIONS > -v:: > Verbose. > > +-a|-#:: > + Abbreviate commit ids to the given number of characters, or 7 for -a > +
Why invent new convention, instead of using -<n> like git-log? Why do not use --abbrev or --abbrev-commit? -<n> is used elsewhere to limit number of commits...
> +-r:: > + Swap <upstream> and <head>
Why not -R like in git-diff?
Show 7 quoted lines
> +
> +-d::
> + Only show commits that don't exist in upstream ("+" lines)
> +
> +-D::
> + Only show commits that do exist in upstream ("-" lines)
> +I'm not sure if -d/-D is the best name of this short option...
Show 6 quoted lines
> <upstream>:: > Upstream branch to compare against. > Defaults to the first tracked remote branch, if available. > -- > 1.5.4.3 >
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git