patchBugfix: stop if directory already exists

Fix a typo: We do not want to run the directory as command, and want to terminate if the directory exists Additionally, update the usage message

Signed-off-by: Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

---

Regarding the usage: I do not think that on an error condition
the usage string should be outputted. This helps nothing:
either the user knows the usage, and can see what is wrong by
the error message, or he should look up the man page.
Should we use "git clone" or "git-clone" in the usage message?
Or perhaps
 usage: git clone ...
 For more details, see 'man git-clone'
?

 git-clone.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

applies-to: 62fad3f1275b9bbf07fba50c328a3bd730c3454c 3de065bff303bd4caa433dfa685fdc1164be2b81

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

Thanks.

I think "git clone" is probably preferred, given that we would eventually want to be able to install them outside /usr/bin/, leaving "git" wrapper (and very small number of other programs) in /usr/bin/.

My understanding of UNIX tradition of "usage:" is to be short and sweet, to primarily help people who already know the command but sometimes cannot remember how exactly the options are spelled (e.g. "was that -F to specify the inter-field separator to "sort" command? Ah, no, it wants -t -- silly me must be doing too much awk these days"). And "for more details see man" goes without saying.

Junio C Hamano wrote:

But we name them differently, as hpa pointed out some week ago.

When I see "usage: <prog> <command>" I expect to find the info in "man <prog>". Soon, this will work to get the right page

	git --help <command>

On Monday 14 November 2005 10:28, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

This is a nice feature, but still needs educating the user. I think that the idea of a huge git man page is not that bad; for sure, it can be created automatically.

A huge man page helps searching a command name (Ah, what was the command to see commit logs per file? What is the counterpart of "cvs update" called?).

Josef

Josef Weidendorfer wrote:

This feature goes away with the huge man-page.

This is already implemented (sort of), but perhaps have both? Or pointers to the other man-pages from the "git" one (as is already sort of done).

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

... meaning, "man git", which would list the subcommands.

And a user who got "usage: git clone blah" and did "man git" once is intelligent enough to know and remember "man git" lists the subcommands, what she wanted to know about was listed as "git-clone(1)", and she had to do "man git-clone", so next time around we should be able to expect her to do "man git-commit". Am I overestimating the users or overtaxing them?

On Monday 14 November 2005 09:57, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Of course; it was more about the current inconsistency: usage says "git clone", but for the man page, you have to know that there is an additional command "git-clone" with extra man page. Usually, if I see e.g. "usage: cvs diff", I look up the man page of "cvs" searching for "diff" on it, not "cvs-diff".

So just another suggestion: Why not put most of the documentation in a huge "git" man page? cvs does this (3601 lines here), all the shells have huge man pages (bash: 4794). We would be in a good tradition ;-)

Josef

Josef Weidendorfer wrote:

Becuase it's horrible. I like the fact that they are split up.

We would be in tradition, but not necessarily a good one. Just because some stupid swede let some herrings ferment in a tin can some 800 years ago there's really no need to say "surströmming! What a clever idea!!" and actually eat the horrible things.