From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:55:13
Krzysztof Mazur [off-list ref] writes:
Maybe we should just add that <paths> is an shortcut for <pathspec>
and fix places where paths and pathspec are mixed or <path> is used as
<pathspec>.
We should unify uses of <paths> and <path> (the former should be
<path>... or something).
Some places you need to give exact path (iow, these places you
cannot use pathspec), while most other places pathspec
(i.e. matching pattern) is accepted.
The manual correctly updated will most likely to use both <path> and
<pathspec> appropriately.
From: Krzysztof Mazur <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:55:13
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:02:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Krzysztof Mazur [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Maybe we should just add that <paths> is an shortcut for <pathspec>
and fix places where paths and pathspec are mixed or <path> is used as
<pathspec>.
We should unify uses of <paths> and <path> (the former should be
<path>... or something).
Currently in most cases "<paths>..." is used ;)
Some places you need to give exact path (iow, these places you
cannot use pathspec), while most other places pathspec
(i.e. matching pattern) is accepted.
I know, thats why I added a note that "<path> is not always used for pathspec".
The manual correctly updated will most likely to use both <path> and
<pathspec> appropriately.
So we should always use "<path>" for exact path, and "<pathspec>" for
pathspecs patterns as defined in gitglossary. I think it's better
to avoid "<paths>" and always use "<path>..." or "<pathspec>...".
Krzysiek
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Krzysztof Mazur [off-list ref] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:02:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Krzysztof Mazur [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Maybe we should just add that <paths> is an shortcut for <pathspec>
and fix places where paths and pathspec are mixed or <path> is used as
<pathspec>.
We should unify uses of <paths> and <path> (the former should be
<path>... or something).
Currently in most cases "<paths>..." is used ;)
So we should always use "<path>" for exact path, and "<pathspec>" for
pathspecs patterns as defined in gitglossary. I think it's better
to avoid "<paths>" and always use "<path>..." or "<pathspec>..."
I suspect that the only reason why the differentiation between
"<path>" and "<paths>" happened is because there may be some places
where it was seen that a _list of paths_ was acceptable (which isn't a
pathspec, as it isn't a search expression) and other places where
_only_ a single path was acceptable. Should that fail to be the case
then there would be a good argument for changing the affected
instances of "<paths>" to "<path>" in the documentation. (I know of no
other good way to pluralize "<path>" myself.)
--
-Drew Northup
--------------------------------------------------------------
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59
From: Krzysztof Mazur <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:55:22
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:55:09AM -0500, Drew Northup wrote:
quoted
So we should always use "<path>" for exact path, and "<pathspec>" for
pathspecs patterns as defined in gitglossary. I think it's better
to avoid "<paths>" and always use "<path>..." or "<pathspec>..."
I suspect that the only reason why the differentiation between
"<path>" and "<paths>" happened is because there may be some places
where it was seen that a _list of paths_ was acceptable (which isn't a
pathspec, as it isn't a search expression) and other places where
<paths> is usually used for a list of <pathspec>, not just a list of <path>.
_only_ a single path was acceptable. Should that fail to be the case
then there would be a good argument for changing the affected
instances of "<paths>" to "<path>" in the documentation. (I know of no
other good way to pluralize "<path>" myself.)
I think it's best to just add "...":
<path> for single exact path,
<path>... for a list of exact paths,
<pathspec> for single pathspec,
<pathspec>... for a list of pathspecs.
Krzysiek