Chris Rorvick <ch...@rorvick.com> writes: > I like Johannes' suggestion of using "<branch>" in the --detach case > instead of "<commit>" as I think it makes the reason for the > separation more obvious at a glance.
Sounds sensible; even though the option does not require its argument to be a branch name, the user does not have a reason to use the option if it is not giving a branch name, either, so it all balances out ;-). > > --->8--- > diff --git a/Documentation/git-checkout.txt b/Documentation/git-checkout.txt > index dcf1a32..4fdf41a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-checkout.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-checkout.txt > @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ $ git checkout <branch> > that is to say, the branch is not reset/created unless "git checkout" is > successful. > > -'git checkout' --detach [<commit>]:: > 'git checkout' <commit>:: > +'git checkout' --detach [<branch>]:: > > Prepare to work on top of <commit>, by detaching HEAD at it > (see "DETACHED HEAD" section), and updating the index and the > @@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ successful. > tree will be the state recorded in the commit plus the local > modifications. > + > -Passing `--detach` forces this behavior even if <commit> is a branch. > +Passing `--detach` forces this behavior in the case of a <branch>, or > +the current branch if one is not specified. > > 'git checkout' [-p|--patch] [<tree-ish>] [--] <pathspec>...:: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html