On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > +static const char * const builtin_branch_diff_usage[] = {
>> > + N_("git rebase--helper [<options>] ( A..B C..D | A...B | base A B
>> > )"),
>>
>> The formatting of "<options>" vs. "base" confused me into thinking
>> that the latter was a literal keyword, but I see from reading patch
>> 3/18 that it is not a literal at all, thus probably ought to be
>> specified as "<base>".
>
> Good point. Or maybe BASE?
Indeed, that's probably more consistent with 'A', 'B', etc. than <base>.
> Or I should just use the same convention as in the man page. Or not, as
> the usage should be conciser.
>
> This is what I have currently:
>
> static const char * const builtin_branch_diff_usage[] = {
> N_("git branch-diff [<options>] <old-base>..<old-tip> <new-base>..<new-tip>"),
> N_("git branch-diff [<options>] <old-tip>...<new-tip>"),
> N_("git branch-diff [<options>] <base> <old-tip> <new-tip>"),
> NULL
> };
I can live with this. It's more verbose but more self-explanatory,
thus likely a good choice.
