Hi Junio,
On 10/06/2019 18:57, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Philip Oakley <[email protected]> writes:
The availability of these pattern selections is not obvious from
the man pages, as per mail thread <[email protected]>.
Provide examples.
Re-order the `git branch` synopsis to emphasise the `--list <pattern>`
pairing. Also expand and reposition the `all/remotes` options.
Split the over-long description into three parts so that the <pattern>
description can be seen.
Clarify that the `all/remotes` options require the --list if patterns
are to be used.
Add examples of listing remote tracking branches that match a pattern,
including `git for-each-ref` which has more options.
Improve the -a/-r warning message. The message confused this author
as the combined -a and -r options had not been given, though a pattern
had. Specifically guide the user that maybe they needed the --list
option to enable a remote branch pattern selection.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>
---
in response to
<[email protected]>
thread:
https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%3CCACsJy8CwY8gzeWa9kNRX3ecez1JGiQiaOknbAoU7S%2BhiXBoUGQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
to: Git Mailing List <[email protected]>
cc: Duy Nguyen <[email protected]>
cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]>
cc: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
This looks reasonable to me---is it ready to go even with its RFC prefix?
Yes; the RFC was only in regard of the die() message change as it
touches real code;-)
Following the post, Stolee's coverage report, it was noted that the
die() wasn't actually tested, so I sent a quick follow-up of a potential
test
https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
which is a proper RFC...
I did not attempt to see if any other dies()'s were untested, just
copied one that was..
Philip
(currently travelling)
