From: Matthieu Moy Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:59:26 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] git-send-email.txt: clarify which options take an argument. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2faad3050904070806o55ba937cy1e5cd4fd156a4352@mail.gmail.com> Baz writes: > 2009/4/7 Matthieu Moy : >> --- >> >> Can someone more knowledgeable than me proof-read this? I tried to use >> intuitive names for the arguments (like 'address' where an email >> address is expected), but since there are options I never used, I may >> have mis-understood some of them. >> >> Thanks, >> >>  Documentation/git-send-email.txt |   36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ >>  1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-email.txt b/Documentation/git-send-email.txt >> index 10dfd66..e25da71 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-send-email.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-send-email.txt >> @@ -39,13 +39,13 @@ OPTIONS >>  Composing >>  ~~~~~~~~~ >> >> ---bcc:: >> +--bcc='address':: >>        Specify a "Bcc:" value for each email. Default is the value of >>        'sendemail.bcc'. > > A general comment: the other man pages use a style like "--bcc=
". Almost all ;-). A quick grep showed me git-rev-list.txt and I did the same. I'll send another patch to make it consistant. >> +--smtp-encryption='mode':: >>        Specify the encryption to use, either 'ssl' or 'tls'.  Any other >>        value reverts to plain SMTP.  Default is the value of >>        'sendemail.smtpencryption'. > > Maybe here. You use for other options below > to mean something else. However, I doubt the use is all that > confusing. Changed to just "encryption", since this is the word used just below in the sentence. >> ---cc-cmd:: >> +--cc-cmd='cmd':: >>        Specify a command to execute once per patch file which >>        should generate patch file specific "Cc:" entries. >>        Output of this command must be single email address per line. >>        Default is the value of 'sendemail.cccmd' configuration value. > > Why not ? The option is short to save typing, doesn't mean > its documentation has to be. Done. >> ---[no-]validate:: >> +--[no-]validate='mode':: >>        Perform sanity checks on patches. >>        Currently, validation means the following: > > Is this one correct? Don't you just type --validate, or --no-validate, > without a value? Fixed too. Thanks, new patch follows. -- Matthieu