git-lfs help contradicts the documentation

[rpgoldman]

Describe the bug

When I type git lfs help to the shell, I see (among other things) the following:

Examples
--------

To get started with Git LFS, the following commands can be used.

 1. Setup Git LFS on your system. You only have to do this once per
    repository per machine:

        git lfs install

However, when I look at the documentation page, I see this:

Download and install the Git command line extension. Once downloaded and installed, set up Git LFS for your user account by running:

git lfs install

You only need to run this once per user account. [italics mine]

So one of these two must be wrong: either you need to install in each working copy, or you only need to install once for your user account on whatever machine you are working on.

To Reproduce

git lfs help

Expected behavior

Help string agrees with documentation (or documentation is revised)

System environment

MacOS Monterey

git-lfs from Homebrew

$ git-lfs --version
git-lfs/3.2.0 (GitHub; darwin arm64; go 1.18.2)

Comments

This is related to #4032, which seems to have partially fixed the problem, but it seems like the out-of-date wording persists in at least one location

When I search for "per repository" I find it here in the source code for the man page, in "Examples".

I don't know what the relationship is between the man page and the help text.

[bk2204]

Hey,

Thanks for the report. The answer is that it's once per user account. Technically, if you do what I do in my dotfiles and persist the configuration as part of your setup on each new machine, you don't need to run it at all on a new machine. However, I think that's more description than belongs in an examples section, and we'll include such a note in the FAQ.

I'll try to get the documenation updated at some point.

[rpgoldman]

@bk2204 Probably enough to just replace "repository" in that sentence with "user."

If you'd like, I can probably make a PR for that. Assuming that would fix the help command as well, because it pulls from that man page?

[bk2204]

Normally, I'd absolutely say yes to a PR fixing that. And yes, we pull from the manual page.

However, right now, I'm in the middle of converting the documentation from one format to another, and such a change would likely be lost in the shuffle, so I'd like to avoid that. I plan to go through all the docs issues and fix as many of them as possible before merging that, so it should be relatively soon.