Wow! I wasn't expecting that amount of reply for such a simple  
patch. :-) I just found it unnecessarily hard to discover all the  
email-related commands in git (even though I already used some of  
them). My point-of-view is that some additional links wouldn't hurt.  
More answers below.

On 11/01/2008, at 21:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Humberto Diogenes <humberto@digi.com.br> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-am.txt b/Documentation/git-am.txt
>> index e4a6b3a..fd00fc1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-am.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-am.txt
>> @@ -144,8 +144,10 @@ names.
>>
>> SEE ALSO
>> --------
>> -gitlink:git-apply[1].
>> -
>> +gitlink:git-apply[1],
>> +gitlink:git-format-patch[1],
>> +gitlink:git-imap-send[1],
>> +gitlink:git-send-email[1]
>
> I do not see a point in this.  "am" is a tool for people who
> accept and they do not care how the sender prepared
> (format-patch) nor sent (imap-send nor send-email).

   Well, if I'm reading the docs about how a program works with some  
input, I'll sure want to know which commands in the package generate  
that kind of output. I think at least git-format-patch deserves a link  
(am: read, format-patch: write).
   And yes, I managed to find git-am and git-send-email but couldn't  
remember the name of git-format-patch.

quoted text
> On the other hand, as am uses mailinfo and mailsplit, it may be
> worth mentioning them (although I suspect not all the readers of
> manual page of am are interested in such a low level details).

   I think it wouldn't hurt.

quoted text
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-apply.txt b/Documentation/git- 
>> apply.txt
>> index c1c54bf..53fa937 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-apply.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-apply.txt
>> @@ -189,6 +189,10 @@ If --index is not specified, then the  
>> submodule commits in the patch
>> are ignored and only the absence of presence of the corresponding
>> subdirectory is checked and (if possible) updated.
>>
>> +See Also
>> +--------
>> +gitlink:git-am[1]
>
> Why?  apply is not about email at all.  am uses apply but not
> the other way around.

   Imagine you don't know git, but know there's some command to apply  
patches from mailboxes. Which one would you try first: git-am or git- 
apply? "git-am" just doesn't say anything (for beginners, at least).

quoted text
> This feels you are going a bit overboard, as if you are adding
> "See Also: git[7]" everywhere (even though it is not that bad).

   Again: wouldn't hurt. :)

quoted text
>> -See Also
>> +SEE ALSO
>> --------
>
> If you are standardizing between "SEE ALSO" and "See Also", I
> think that is a worthy thing to do independent from the
> additional links, but (1) please be consistent --- you tried to
> add "See Also" yoruself above, (2) please have a separate patch
> that does _ONLY_ the standardization to "SEE ALSO", and not
> limited to commands that has (maybe remotely) something to do
> with emailed patch workflow.
>
> Right now, I count 14 "SEE ALSO" and 17 "See Also".  127 spell
> "Author" and 5 spell "AUTHOR".  Everybody says "NAME", "SYNOPSIS",
> "DESCRIPTION", and "OPTIONS".
>
> I think we should spell these in all uppercase.

   Yes, I could see this one coming. Sorry.


--
Humberto Diógenes
http://humberto.digi.com.br

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html