-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
git-ls-tree, git-rev-list, git-rev-parse: add pages #3644
Conversation
pages/common/git-ls-tree.md
Outdated
|
||
- List the contents of the tree on a commit and show only filenames: | ||
|
||
`git ls-tree --name-only {{HEAD~3}}` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would change HEAD~3
to HEAD~N
and note it shows the situation N commits ago or something like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would rather not put it as {{{HEAD}}~{{N}}. Maybe just HEAD~{{N}}?
/cc @waldyrious what would be the proper syntax here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@BeLi4L maybe wait for a consensus to emerge in these discussions before applying the changes, otherwise you may need to do a lot of back and forth 😅
As for the syntax, I'm afraid we're making things too complex. The syntax for relative references is not something that this page is responsible for introducing. My suggestion is to simply include the 3
in the command description, and use {{HEAD~3}}
as the token, rather than generalize with N
. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or maybe we could bypass this conundrum altogether by using another type of reference, like a tag (e.g. {{v1.2.3}}
).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@zdroid I'd like to know what you dislike about using a tag, in light of my comments above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't the term commit-ish used in the man pages?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any news on this? I can use commit-ish
if you're all OK with that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current version is fine with me. Maybe @sbrl wants to use "commit-ish" instead, both work for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind. Either work for me.
The build
Please fix the error(s) and push again. |
Co-Authored-By: Waldir Pimenta <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Waldir Pimenta <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for sticking with the review process, @BeLi4L!
common/
,linux/
, etc.)