push: use PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP instead of unbalanced brackets
The option help text for the force-with-lease option to "git push" reads like this: $ git push -h 2>&1 | grep -e force-with-lease --force-with-lease[=<refname>:<expect>] which comes from having N_("refname>:<expect") as the argument help text in the source code, with an aparent lack of "<" and ">" at both ends. It turns out that parse-options machinery takes the whole string and encloses it inside a pair of "<>", to make it easier for majority cases that uses a single token placeholder. The help string was written in a funnily unbalanced way knowing that the end result would balance out, by somebody who forgot the presence of PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP, which is the escape hatch mechanism designed to help such a case. We just should use the official escape hatch instead. Because ":<expect>" part can be omitted to ask Git to guess, it may be more correct to spell it as "<refname>[:<expect>]", but that is not the focus of this topic. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Helped-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a42a58d7b6
commit
c67318ecb6
@ -542,9 +542,9 @@ int cmd_push(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
|
||||
OPT_BIT( 0, "porcelain", &flags, N_("machine-readable output"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_PORCELAIN),
|
||||
OPT_BIT('f', "force", &flags, N_("force updates"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE),
|
||||
{ OPTION_CALLBACK,
|
||||
0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("refname>:<expect"),
|
||||
0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("<refname>:<expect>"),
|
||||
N_("require old value of ref to be at this value"),
|
||||
PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, parseopt_push_cas_option },
|
||||
PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP, parseopt_push_cas_option },
|
||||
{ OPTION_CALLBACK, 0, "recurse-submodules", &recurse_submodules, "check|on-demand|no",
|
||||
N_("control recursive pushing of submodules"),
|
||||
PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, option_parse_recurse_submodules },
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user