From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 08:19:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] document new flags
Message-ID: <m38wkfatqc.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1243647555-25098-2-git-send-email-user@lamp>

Jeff Epler <unpythonic.net@unpythonic.net> writes:

> 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.
 
> 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?

> +
> +-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...

>  <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