# [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update 6 messages from 2005-05-08 to 2005-05-08. Participants: David Greaves, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/531 ## David Greaves, 2005-05-08 17:22 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <427E4AE1.2040105@dgreaves.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/427E4AE1.2040105%40dgreaves.com ``` Hi Linus, Junio Here's an update of the core-git docs. I haven't changed the content - just the format. 1/2 was just sorting the core-git into alphabetical order. 2/2 is a complete reformat to asciidoc format. This includes a splitter to create individual txt, html and man pages. David -- ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-05-08 19:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <7vhdhd5wzm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vhdhd5wzm.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <427E4AE1.2040105@dgreaves.com> ``` Quick question. Is this against the tip of Linus tree? ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-05-08 20:28 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <7vd5s15up8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vd5s15up8.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <427E4AE1.2040105@dgreaves.com> ``` David, thanks for taking time to update the document. I ended up hand merging your two patches since I had a bit more documentation updates in git-jc tree, so I'd like you to proofread the result. It is my understanding that if I have a correct patch result from your patch 1 and patch 2, I can throw away this message: Subject: [FILES] core-git documentation update Am I correct? I intend to keep not-so-controvercial stuff in git-jc tree, so that when Linus returns he can pull from it instead of patching from a pile of e-mails, potentially risking to leave good stuff in his mailbox during that process. The following diff is between: - Linus tree with two patches from you + The result of my hand merge, which I intend to ask Linus to pull when he returns. Thanks. --- # - 2: As Greaves # + (working tree) --- a/Documentation/core-git.txt +++ b/Documentation/core-git.txt @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ git-diff-cache - Compares content and mo SYNOPSIS -------- -'git-diff-cache' [-p] [-r] [-z] [--cached] +'git-diff-cache' [-p] [-r] [-z] [-m] [--cached] DESCRIPTION ----------- @@ -500,6 +500,12 @@ OPTIONS --cached:: do not consider the on-disk file at all +-m:: + By default, files recorded in the index but not checked + out are reported as deleted. This flag makes + git-diff-cache say that all non-checked-out files are up + to date. + Output format ------------- include::diff-format.txt[] @@ -1515,7 +1521,7 @@ git-update-cache - Modifies the index or SYNOPSIS -------- 'git-update-cache' - [--add] [--remove] [--refresh] + [--add] [--remove] [--refresh] [--replace] [--ignore-missing] [--force-remove ] [--cacheinfo ]\* @@ -1556,6 +1562,14 @@ OPTIONS Remove the file from the index even when the working directory still has such a file. +--replace:: + By default, when a file `path` exists in the index, + git-update-cache refuses an attempt to add `path/file`. + Similarly if a file `path/file` exists, a file `path` + cannot be added. With --replace flag, existing entries + that conflicts with the entry being added are + automatically removed with warning messages. + --:: Do not interpret any more arguments as options. ``` ## David Greaves, 2005-05-08 21:01 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <427E7E40.1020702@dgreaves.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/427E7E40.1020702%40dgreaves.com In-Reply-To: <7vhdhd5wzm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` Junio C Hamano wrote: >Quick question. Is this against the tip of Linus tree? > > > > yes -- ``` ## David Greaves, 2005-05-08 21:26 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <427E83EA.2000104@dgreaves.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/427E83EA.2000104%40dgreaves.com In-Reply-To: <7vd5s15up8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` Junio C Hamano wrote: >David, thanks for taking time to update the document. I ended >up hand merging your two patches since I had a bit more >documentation updates in git-jc tree, so I'd like you to >proofread the result. > > This merged fine. Purely for editorial consistency I added "" around the command - see patch The intention now was for me to go through Linus' HEAD and verify the docs actually documented the HEAD. Then I think comparing the HEAD to jit-jc and preparing patches for that? >It is my understanding that if I have a correct patch result >from your patch 1 and patch 2, I can throw away this message: > > Subject: [FILES] core-git documentation update > >Am I correct? > > yes - that was just to assist people in reading the docs without having to apply patches etc etc. >I intend to keep not-so-controvercial stuff in git-jc tree, so >that when Linus returns he can pull from it instead of patching >from a pile of e-mails, potentially risking to leave good stuff >in his mailbox during that process. > > I had hoped you'd pick this up in that manner - thanks David PS Removed Linus from cc Add quotes for editorial consistency Signed-off-by: David Greaves --- Documentation/core-git.txt: needs update Index: Documentation/core-git.txt =================================================================== --- 08cd7ce14ca4da7db37dce88e416e67b01f3452a/Documentation/core-git.txt (mode:100644 sha1:e046119fcdd948dec81b11376ec9198e76a109af) +++ uncommitted/Documentation/core-git.txt (mode:100644) @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ -m:: By default, files recorded in the index but not checked out are reported as deleted. This flag makes - git-diff-cache say that all non-checked-out files are up + "git-diff-cache" say that all non-checked-out files are up to date. Output format ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-05-08 23:35 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] core-git documentation update Message-ID: <7v3bsx2sv8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v3bsx2sv8.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <427E83EA.2000104@dgreaves.com> ``` >>>>> "DG" == David Greaves writes: DG> The intention now was for me to go through Linus' HEAD and verify the DG> docs actually documented the HEAD. DG> Then I think comparing the HEAD to jit-jc and preparing patches for that? That one is up to you, but if your patches are against git-jc, it would make _my_ life simpler and hopefully would make merge easier for Linus when he returns. After he returns, it would probably not make much sense sending patch against git-jc, unless all of the following conditions hold true: (1) what is already merged to git-jc conflicts with what you are modifying, (2) all changes in git-jc are trivially correct and veriy likely to hit Linus tree without being rejected, and (3) Linus is too busy and lags behind git-jc. ```