threads / discuss / 16903
Subject: some git-commands --help don't act like git commands --help
jidanni@jidanni.orgHmmm, some git-commands --help act just like git commands --help, $ git commit --help 2>&1|wc -l 336 $ git-commit --help 2>&1|wc -l 336
But others don't $ git am --help 2>&1|wc -l 152 $ git-am --help 2>&1|wc -l 19
$ git --version git version 1.5.6.5 on Debian sid.
Nanako ShiraishiRe: some git-commands --help don't act like git commands --help
Quoting jidanni@jidanni.org:
> Hmmm, some git-commands --help act just like git commands --help, > $ git commit --help 2>&1|wc -l > 336 > $ git-commit --help 2>&1|wc -l > 336 > > But others don't > $ git am --help 2>&1|wc -l > 152 > $ git-am --help 2>&1|wc -l > 19
Thank you for your observation; what do you want to do about it?
Are you complaining that some commands do not have customized description that is not as long as the full manual page but not as terse as the short help "-h" output? Or are you complaining some other commands do not give you full manual pages for "--help"?
-- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/
Re: some git-commands --help don't act like git commands --help
Nanako Shiraishi schrieb:
> Quoting jidanni@jidanni.org: > >> Hmmm, some git-commands --help act just like git commands --help, >> $ git commit --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 336 >> $ git-commit --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 336 >> >> But others don't >> $ git am --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 152 >> $ git-am --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 19 > > Thank you for your observation; what do you want to do about it? > > Are you complaining that some commands do not have customized description that is not as long as the full manual page but not as terse as the short help "-h" output? Or are you complaining some other commands do not give you full manual pages for "--help"? >
I think he just wantet to state that the output of git-command --help and git command --help should be identical as the both do the same thing, don't they?
Regards Michael
Junio C HamanoRe: some git-commands --help don't act like git commands --help
Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:
> Quoting jidanni@jidanni.org: > >> Hmmm, some git-commands --help act just like git commands --help, >> $ git commit --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 336 >> $ git-commit --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 336 >> >> But others don't >> $ git am --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 152 >> $ git-am --help 2>&1|wc -l >> 19 > > Thank you for your observation; what do you want to do about it? > > Are you complaining that some commands do not have customized description that is not as long as the full manual page but not as terse as the short help "-h" output? Or are you complaining some other commands do not give you full manual pages for "--help"?
I think he is comparing "git am" and "git-am" the latter of which is now deprecated and largely removed from the end user.
IOW, the seeming inconsistency is not an issue anymore in practice in the post 1.6.0 era.
jidanni@jidanni.org"git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"?
JCH> I think he is comparing "git am" and "git-am" the latter of which is now JCH> deprecated and largely removed from the end user.
By the way, we here at the end user end have a hard time detecting if "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"...
Idea: right at top of "man git" say: You might have noticed sometimes people write "git-whatever" and sometimes write "git whatever", well ...
JCH> IOW, the seeming inconsistency is not an issue anymore in practice in the JCH> post 1.6.0 era.
(I was just hoping everything is consistent, one way or the other.)
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.Re: "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"?
On Monday 2008 December 29 13:37:19 jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
> JCH> I think he is comparing "git am" and "git-am" the latter of which is > JCH> now deprecated and largely removed from the end user. > > By the way, we here at the end user end have a hard time detecting if > "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"...
That shouldn't be a problem for much longer because "git-whatever" will stop working. From what I understand, "git whatever" has always been the preferred form, and the fact that "git-whatever" worked was just a implementation detail.
-- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
A Large Angry SCMRe: "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"?
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 2008 December 29 13:37:19 jidanni@jidanni.org wrote: >> JCH> I think he is comparing "git am" and "git-am" the latter of which is >> JCH> now deprecated and largely removed from the end user. >> >> By the way, we here at the end user end have a hard time detecting if >> "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"... > > That shouldn't be a problem for much longer because "git-whatever" will stop > working. From what I understand, "git whatever" has always been the > preferred form, and the fact that "git-whatever" worked was just a > implementation detail.
This is a revisionist history. Check the history of the git command to find out when it was created and then check the ML archives for related discussions.
jidanni@jidanni.orgRe: "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"?
>> That shouldn't be a problem for much longer because "git-whatever" >> will stop working. From what I understand, "git whatever" has >> always been the preferred form, and the fact that "git-whatever" >> worked was just a implementation detail.
I thought if A worked from the start, and now B also works, you all must have been moving to B, and so I made all my shell scripts use B.
ALAS> This is a revisionist history. Check the history of the git command to ALAS> find out when it was created and then check the ML archives for ALAS> related discussions.
All I know is we beginners just encounter both forms in the literature and won't know about looking into whatever histories... and assumed until this post that git-whatever was the new style! OK, now I know the truth.
jidanni@jidanni.orgRe: "git-whatever" the new style vs. "git whatever"?
I swear we new users would have never guessed that git-whatever was yes the new, but _deprecated_ style, until we asked on this newslist, and today chucked Debian sid for Debian experimental, to see the following. OK. Good to finally know. I feel sorry for all the Debian Sid users who haven't heard the news and are putting the soon to break form into their scripts and newsposts. Indeed, you on the mailing list could point out to any users that what they just posted is going to break soon.
Wait, e.g., git commit --help, man git-commit, etc. are still full of the old notation here now in 1.6.0...
--- News for git-core (git-core git-email gitk) --- git-core (1:1.6.0-1) experimental; urgency=low
Most of the programs are now installed outside the default $PATH, except for "git", "gitk" and some server side programs that need to be accessible for technical reasons. Invoking a git subcommand as "git-xyzzy" from the command line has been deprecated since early 2006 (and officially announced in the 1.5.4 release notes); using the "git-xyzzy" form in scripts after adding the output from "git --exec-path" to the $PATH is still supported in this release, but users are again strongly encouraged to adjust their scripts to use the "git xyzzy" form, as this support might be dropped in later releases.
-- Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:31:44 +0000