On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:24:35PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > could we change this (and other similar) prefix so that it doesn't > contain a slash? I mean, change dev/ to dev- or something like that. > The slash confused me a lot, because it's also used to separate a remote > name from the branch name, like in origin/master. I'm sure that if we > will adopt "dev/blahblah" naming, many people will mistakenly believe > that "dev" is something like "origin", and they will be very confused.
Good point! I like it. > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode297 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:297: git branch dev/cg > I think it would be good to be verbose, because it will give people more > information about using git (and they won't have to ask certain > questions). In this case i would suggest > > git branch dev/cg --track origin/master But we don't want it to track origin/master, do we? People should merge from master manually (covered in this section). > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode318 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:318: @qq{profit}, I mean > @qq{push stuff to staging}. > i think this fragment is irrelevant here. It confuses me. I don't mind removing it... > I'd write something like > "You can switch to your local branches and to the remote branches as > well" > instead. ... but *this* confuses me. How can git switch to a remote branch? Aren't all branches local? I mean, whenever you switch to a "remote" branch, doesn't that just create a local copy of the remote branch, then put you on that local branch? > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode345 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:345: Add a file, then commit > it: > I'd write > "by default, git commit -a only commits changes to the files that > existed before you made your changes. If you want to include a file > created by you in the commit, use git add:" That's much more verbose, and it only affects 1% of git usage. There's certainly a better wording than what is written currently, but I don't think this is it. > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode360 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:360: @subsubheading Save > commits manually (optional) > I suggest changing this to > "save commits to external files" or sth. like that. Good idea! > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode362 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:362: Branches are > nerve-wracking until you get used to them. You can > Insert "After you committed your changes, you can..." > > (format-patch doesn't work with uncommitted changes) +1 > http://codereview.appspot.com/5539062/diff/3004/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode463 > Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:463: If everything looks > good, push it: > maybe "push it to the staging branch located on remote origin"? This > will give contributor more information about what he is doing (= less > questions to answer). I think that mentioning "local" or "remote" will only add confusion. The goal is not to explain how to use git; the goal is to let people use git as painlessly as possible. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
