Re: [PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks

2017-11-27 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Kaartic, On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > On Monday 27 November 2017 11:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > > > +using `git --no-optional-locks status` (see linkgit:git[1] for details). > > It strikes me just now that `--no-side-effects` might have been a bette

Re: [PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks

2017-11-27 Thread Kaartic Sivaraam
On Monday 27 November 2017 11:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King writes: +using `git --no-optional-locks status` (see linkgit:git[1] for details). It strikes me just now that `--no-side-effects` might have been a better name for the option (of course, iff this avoid all kinds of side ef

[PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks

2017-11-26 Thread Jeff King
last > email. But in all the discussion, I haven't seen any patch to that > effect. Maybe like this. -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks If you come to the documentation thinking "I do not want Git to take any locks for my background processes",

Re: [PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks

2017-11-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
ggested improving the documentation in my last >> email. But in all the discussion, I haven't seen any patch to that >> effect. > > Maybe like this. I gave it only a single read, and it was a quite easy read. Will queue but not immediately merge to 'next' before I he