Alex Vandiver [off-list ref] writes:
Signed-off-by: Alex Vandiver <redacted>
Sounds good as it makes the behaviour consistent with the underlying "git
fetch".
...
"git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] <name>",
- "git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [group | remote]",
+ "git remote [-v | --verbose] [-q | --quiet] update [-p | --prune] [group]",
We say "<name>" everywhere else except for "update" we call the parameter
"group" or "remote" using different typography. It is not the fault of
your patch, but has been this way since 1918278 (Allow git-remote to
update named groups of remotes, 2007-02-20).
Three issues to consider:
- shouldn't we use the same typography, i.e. <group>?
- should we say <name> _if_ we are not going to say <group>|<remote>?
- should we keep it as <group>|<remote> to make it clear that only this
subcommand allows the group nickname?
The first two are easy and I expect the answers to be both yes. The third
one needs some studying and further thought.
- is "remote update" the only one that takes group nickname?
- should "remote update" the only one? e.g. does "remote prune" also
take group? if not, shouldn't it?
At Sat Dec 05 21:04:14 -0500 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Alex Vandiver [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
...
"git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] <name>",
- "git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [group | remote]",
+ "git remote [-v | --verbose] [-q | --quiet] update [-p | --prune] [group]",
Hm, I hadn't noticed that I'd changed "[group | remote]" to "[group]".
I think this is due to a mismerge on my part -- apologies. As another
data point, `git fetch` describes this as "[<repository> | <group>]".
Three issues to consider:
- shouldn't we use the same typography, i.e. <group>?
- should we say <name> _if_ we are not going to say <group>|<remote>?
- should we keep it as <group>|<remote> to make it clear that only this
subcommand allows the group nickname?
The first two are easy and I expect the answers to be both yes. The third
one needs some studying and further thought.
- is "remote update" the only one that takes group nickname?
My quick skim of the code says "yes" -- the other commands only deal
with single remotes at a time, and prune is oblivious to groups.
- should "remote update" the only one? e.g. does "remote prune" also
take group? if not, shouldn't it?
Properly, it "ought" to, though I don't see much utility over `git
remote fetch --prune groupname`. Probably at the same time, the
parallel pruning codepaths in builtin-fetch.c:prune_refs() and
builtin-remote.c:prune_remote() should be unified.
- Alex
--
Networking -- only one letter away from not working