Re: [PATCH] git-fast-import(1): reorganise options
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 05:51:09AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> John Keeping wrote:
>> I left the "Semantics of execution" options with the general options
>> since I couldn't think of a sensible heading
>
> Neat trick. :)
I took inspiration from git-pull(1), which has a few general options followed by several "Options related to..." sections.
Show 15 quoted lines
> [...]
> > -- <8 --
> > The options in git-fast-import(1) are not currently arranged in a
> > logical order, which has caused the '--done' options to be documented
> > twice (commit 3266de10).
> >
> > Rearrange them into logical groups under subheadings.
>
> Nice description.
>
> > While doing this, fix the duplicate '--done' documentation by taking the
> > best bits of each. Also combine the descriptions of '--relative-marks'
> > and '--no-relative-marks' since they make more sense together.
>
> I'd prefer to keep those as separate patches, if that's manageable.
I'll send a series of three patches if the discussion below seems reasonable:
[1/3] remove duplicate '--done' [2/3] combine --[no-]relative-marks [3/3] reorganize options
Show 38 quoted lines
> The organization you propose is:
>
> OPTIONS
> -------
> --quiet
> --stats
> --force
> --cat-blob-fd
> --export-pack-edges
>
> Options related to the input stream
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --date-format
> --done
>
> Options related to marks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --export-marks
> --import-marks
> --import-marks-if-exists
> --relative-marks
> --no-relative-marks
>
> Options for tuning
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --active-branches
> --big-file-threshold
> --depth
> --max-pack-size
>
> These headings are less cryptic than the ones I proposed, which is a
> nice thing.
>
> My only nitpicks:
>
> I'd worry that the catch-all toplevel category would grow larger
> and larger with time, since it's the obvious place to put any new
> option.
I agree that that's a concern, perhaps '--cat-blob-fd' should be combined with '--date-format' and '--done' into a section called "Options for frontends" or similar?
And maybe '--export-pack-edges' can move to the performance/compression tuning section? I expect the interested audience would be the same.
That only leaves three options in that section, which seems more reasonable.
Show 20 quoted lines
> Part of what I tried to do with the proposed categorization was to
> separate options that change the semantics of the import (which one
> uses with "feature" when they are specified in the fast-import stream
> since ignoring them results in a broken import) from options that only
> change superficial aspects of the interface or the details of how the
> resulting packfiles representing the same objects get written.
>
> The phrasing of the name of the category "Options related to the input
> stream" is too broad. All options relate to the input stream, since
> consuming an input stream and acting on it is all fast-import does.
> Something more specific than "related to" and a mention of "syntax"
> could make it clearer --- how about something like "Input Syntax
> Features"?
>
> Likewise, lots of functionality is _related_ to marks, but the marks
> options are the options that specify marks files. I don't know a good
> way to say that --- maybe "Location of Marks Files"?
>
> "Options for Tuning" could also be made more specific --- e.g.,
> "Performance and Compression Tuning".
I realise it's personal taste, but I like the subheadings of the form "Options (for|related to) ...", so maybe:
Options for input stream features Options related to marks files Options for performance and compression tuning
Note that I chose sentence case instead of title case to be consistent with git-pull(1).
> I like how you put important options like --force on top. Perhaps
> the less important --quiet and --stats could be split off from that
> into a subsection like "Verbosity" to make them stand out even more.
I quite like having the verbosity options near the top since those are the ones that are most likely to be of interest to a user, whereas the rest are likely to be prescribed by the frontend (or only really useful to frontend authors).
John
Eric S. Raymond
