Re: git-merge: inconsistent manual page.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Subject: git-merge: document but discourage the historical syntax

Historically "git merge" took its command line arguments in a
rather strange order.  Document the historical syntax, and also
document clearly that it is not encouraged in new scripts.

There is no reason to deprecate the historical syntax, as the
current code can sanely tell which syntax the caller is using,
and existing scripts by people do use the historical syntax.

OK, your patch is better than what I've suggested. The only thing that
your patch seems to be missing is prepending -m to <msg>:: in the
OPTIONS section. Yeah, it could be more strict to just describe <msg>,
but if there were no historical syntax, then you'd put '-m <msg>'
description in, right? So the latter might be better anyway.

-- 
Sergei.

Sergei Organov [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Subject: git-merge: document but discourage the historical syntax

Historically "git merge" took its command line arguments in a
rather strange order.  Document the historical syntax, and also
document clearly that it is not encouraged in new scripts.

There is no reason to deprecate the historical syntax, as the
current code can sanely tell which syntax the caller is using,
and existing scripts by people do use the historical syntax.

OK, your patch is better than what I've suggested. The only thing that
your patch seems to be missing is prepending -m to <msg>:: in the
OPTIONS section. Yeah, it could be more strict to just describe <msg>,
...

Nah, you are absolutely right.  We describe "-s <strategy>"
under the headline with the leading "-s".

Will fix.