From: Petr Baudis <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 19:59:10
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:26:44PM CET, Sean wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:15:49 +0100
Rene Scharfe [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I copied most of the text from git-status.txt.
[...]
quoted
+git-runstatus - Show working tree status
Don't forget to add it to the list of commands.
How is git-runstatus different from "git status"?
I have the same question.
Should this command be viewed simply as plumbing, and if so does it
deserve a man page or just textual documentation in the source?
All commands deserve a man page.
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is:
"Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."
From: A Large Angry SCM <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 19:47:01
Sean wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:04:43 +0100
Rene Scharfe [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
git-status is a wrapper around git-runstatus that takes the same
options as git-commit. It could have been named 'git-commit --dry-run'.
What could be said in the docs as to when the use of one is preferred
over the other?
quoted
quoted
All commands deserve a man page.
Exactly. Even plumbers read manuals ;-). Well, me at least.
Heh, I suppose you and Petr are right. It's just that in recent
discussions the great number of commands provided by Git is seen
as a UI problem. Thus having two commands that seem to do the
exact same thing gives more such pain for no gain.
It's possible that plumbers should not be seen as "users" but
rather as coders capable of reading traditional text based
(non man-page) documentation for their purposes, and man pages
should only exist (or at least installed) for user level commands.
@@ -424,6 +424,9 @@ gitlink:git-pack-redundant[1]:: gitlink:git-rev-list[1]:: Lists commit objects in reverse chronological order.+gitlink:git-runstatus[1]::+ Show working tree status.+ gitlink:git-show-index[1]:: Displays contents of a pack idx file.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:20:54 -0800
A Large Angry SCM [off-list ref] wrote:
Are you suggesting that all non section 1 man pages should not exist?
No... I was wrong to suggest there shouldn't be a man page.. I
guess my real concern was why this particular command was needed
at all.
Really, it's not the man pages that are the problem but rather
the large number of commands that are installed into the standard
path that should only ever be accessed as plumbing.
The plumbing-only commands should really be installed somewhere
else, and man pages for them need only be installed in a
-devel package, not in the standard install.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:04:43 +0100
Rene Scharfe [off-list ref] wrote:
git-status is a wrapper around git-runstatus that takes the same
options as git-commit. It could have been named 'git-commit --dry-run'.
What could be said in the docs as to when the use of one is preferred
over the other?
quoted
All commands deserve a man page.
Exactly. Even plumbers read manuals ;-). Well, me at least.
Heh, I suppose you and Petr are right. It's just that in recent
discussions the great number of commands provided by Git is seen
as a UI problem. Thus having two commands that seem to do the
exact same thing gives more such pain for no gain.
It's possible that plumbers should not be seen as "users" but
rather as coders capable of reading traditional text based
(non man-page) documentation for their purposes, and man pages
should only exist (or at least installed) for user level commands.