From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com (mail-oi1-f179.google.com [209.85.167.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67C481799D for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 22:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="UXiM7Qi1" Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bbf67d619cso1874491b6e.2 for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:25:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1704234311; x=1704839111; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pLFpmjgqqhwFRzPU2FmcUMywV074PLZimD20jT67VlY=; b=UXiM7Qi1QS/5IjODcqTcGJ5ulcYbTBjPbd3022pZujmboffzI3TICo/foqcB6zkYFL CfOioozNSCmuU0bzhJi7ji7/HlaUY+HA7/yfwVnrKPHpxbqkJP8OgU0pnU/zJ+ZlFBY6 KSKut6SKuBimz6tF0j5tooWVrrE7RVRxYmIHG734T2bmTO+wGxyWR1aPcZcvqoCfuu3K iEpgp14oJRAkschSASjsZ7k1Sdyt+nBKnHfJsHi9VXZF9SVsIP2dQR03rUU7LS2W8s7E Cfr732QICyDds0MfOADzo9ttjBa8Fgs4IMhC/OpKmF5MxS0ljjzqm9Q0NVfpbH4LSXai r7lg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704234311; x=1704839111; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=pLFpmjgqqhwFRzPU2FmcUMywV074PLZimD20jT67VlY=; b=WZGeXxofKUEgoToLLBbDUYrA89YmZ722+Epn25h36zdRFde6acMIDGKs7LgBeUMlFb u2ULz7spob+emIHaHJ63FICGfJgl88T4OXr8ZoKhp1V5rSlQ7+/+YThdzn6z5A5vKxqs 7gBRnEQde8vFX+tRtRIOJuqrApynu7Koq5bpu2AVlSHxoqKogpNIgwXn5dWVsO6KSBAq ihbydRXFIYUA6hVcVeLaTGDW7pNKgeortzRKTlm47L+f/AP3Uah8wM+FksrIVXfOihP1 PBmX6BeraUdu0rWjUPvKAXDhy0SgYUIMSDh4YCYLxmk83vOU2kvgoAowSgKRsK15Z+gZ Xd9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy5DjWiB9kwPLY+naQ4VPGobqSVLVm7aAlEhXcFyuN8u+Qb1eol 0EO4c6/F6tkpymhdmIsiEXtdCpLXYZIEYg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGzbltrCAo/yFGf44SkWa4A/HnuRo8hAJa3JxnEo5KV+c3I68nx+whPHbUXmhNyBXtZUBQl7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1156:b0:3bb:aaa4:3df1 with SMTP id u22-20020a056808115600b003bbaaa43df1mr10982274oiu.110.1704234311535; Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a9-20020a056808098900b003bbc2bc270csm1954321oic.44.2024.01.02.14.25.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:25:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:25:10 -0500 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jakub Wilk , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-clone.txt: document -4 and -6 Message-ID: References: <20230527123849.5990-1-jwilk@jwilk.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:15:57PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau writes: > > > Note that the 'clone' and 'fetch' versions for many of these options > > have different wording. For example, in Documentation/git-clone.txt we > > have: > > > > -j:: > > --jobs=:: > > Number of parallel children to be used for all forms of fetching. > > > > Whereas the description in the original fetch-options.txt is more > > verbose. > > Yes, so it will be impossible to unify without changing the > resulting text. But unless one description is clearly better for > one subcommand while the other description is also clearly better > for the other subcommand, we should be able to pick a better one > that would serve both subcommands, and that way we would improve > description for one subcommand while keeping the other one the same, > right? Right. I meant to illustrate merely that this would probably involve some word-smithing instead of just pure cut-and-paste, so that it may not be worth the effort. Thanks, Taylor