Matthieu Moy wrote: > I'd put it the other way around: the intuitive explanation first, and > the technical one after. For people not totally familiar with Git, the > first part does not make much sense (and when I learn a new tool, I > really don't like when the doc assumes I already know too much about > it).
Good. > Also, this $HEAD Vs HEAD doesn't seem very clear to me. I don't have a > really good proposal for a better wording, but maybe replacing $HEAD > with $branch would make a bit more sense, as having $HEAD != HEAD is > weird. Good. >> +* `simple` - in central workflows, behaves like `upstream`, except >> + that it errors out unless branch.$HEAD.merge is equal to $HEAD. > > "... except that it errors out if branch.$HEAD.merge is not equal to > $HEAD." ? Good. >> + single command. Dangerous, and inappropriate unless you are the >> + only person updating your push destination. > > Here also, I'd have said "Dangerous, and inappropriate if you are > not ...". I might have overplayed the danger a bit, as Junio points out. I'll have a look at your --force documentation patch. -- 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