Signed-off-by: Matthew Ogilvie <redacted>
---
I could have used these references when I was looking at git-ls-files
documentation and trying to figure out how to make it list files
from a specific commit like git-ls-tree.
(This is a resend. I sent this patch a couple of weeks ago,
but it apparently slipped through the cracks.)
Documentation/git-ls-files.txt | 2 +-
Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
index 4b28292..8ce3c3b 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ pattern file appears in.
SEE ALSO
--------
-linkgit:git-read-tree[1], linkgit:gitignore[5]
+linkgit:git-ls-tree[1], linkgit:git-read-tree[1], linkgit:gitignore[5]
GIT
---
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
index 16e87fd..1cd52cc 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
@@ -95,6 +95,10 @@ Object size identified by <object> is given in bytes, and right-justified
with minimum width of 7 characters. Object size is given only for blobs
(file) entries; for other entries `-` character is used in place of size.
+SEE ALSO
+--------
+linkgit:git-ls-files[1]
+
GIT
---
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite
--
Matthew Ogilvie [off-list ref] writes:
Signed-off-by: Matthew Ogilvie <redacted>
---
I could have used these references when I was looking at git-ls-files
documentation and trying to figure out how to make it list files
from a specific commit like git-ls-tree.
I do not like this kind of patches in general. Where will it end?
"I wanted to know how to list objects recorded in a commit, and I
could have used a reference to git-ls-tree from git-commit, so here
is a patch to make them refer to each other"?
That kind of overfiew is what the tutorial (for concepts like the
index, tree objects, commit objects, etc.) and the list of commands
in git(1). Is there compelling reason other than "I didn't bother
to look, and it is likely other people wouldn't" to apply patches
like this?
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:43:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Matthew Ogilvie [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Matthew Ogilvie <redacted>
---
I could have used these references when I was looking at git-ls-files
documentation and trying to figure out how to make it list files
from a specific commit like git-ls-tree.
I do not like this kind of patches in general. Where will it end?
"I wanted to know how to list objects recorded in a commit, and I
could have used a reference to git-ls-tree from git-commit, so here
is a patch to make them refer to each other"?
That kind of overfiew is what the tutorial (for concepts like the
index, tree objects, commit objects, etc.) and the list of commands
in git(1). Is there compelling reason other than "I didn't bother
to look, and it is likely other people wouldn't" to apply patches
like this?
Not really. Certainly this is a low priority change.
But why do many of the man pages have "SEE ALSO"
sections? Should we just get rid of such sections? Does anyone
have any guidelines/rules for what makes sense to be in a
"SEE ALSO" section?
My personal impression is that git-ls-files (which lists files
in the working directory or index) and git-ls-tree (which lists files in
a commit or tree object) are so similar that they could almost be
merged into a single command. Linking them together in the
documentation seemed obvious, but maybe that's just me.