Chris Rorvick writes:
> I like Johannes' suggestion of using "" in the --detach case
> instead of "" 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 r
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here is a work-in-progress relative to Chris's 83c9989
> (Documentation/git-checkout.txt: document 70c9ac2 behavior,
> 2012-12-17).
It sounds pretty good to me.
> @@ -54,12 +61,17 @@ $ git checkout
> that is to say, the branch is not res
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>>> +'git checkout' [--detach] []::
>
> The title here is better spelled as two lines:
>
> 'git checkout' ::
> 'git checkout' --detach ::
AsciiDoc renders these horizontally separated by a comma when
formatted as a man page instead of vertical
I like these, and I think they are conveying the right amount of
information. There is a slight discrepancy between the and
versions, where it seems we are assuming that by checking out
a commit you are intending to work 'on top of' it. This could be
avoided by using the term 'with' in both cases
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I agree with you that sightseeing use case where you do not intend
> to make any commit is also important. That is exactly why I said
> "further work is done on that branch" not "to that branch" in the
> message you are responding to.
Here is a work-in-progress relative
On 18 December 2012 08:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Ardill writes:
>> Even if the primary purpose of "git checkout " is to "check
>> out the branch so that further work is done on that branch", I don't
>> believe that means it has to be stated first. In fact, I would say
>> that there are e
From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Monday, December 17,
2012 9:13 PM
"Philip Oakley" writes:
From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Monday, December 17,
This is to "check out the branch" ;-)
...
From a user perspective it's better to refer to the working directory
first rather than the internal mechanics
Andrew Ardill writes:
> Even if the primary purpose of "git checkout " is to "check
> out the branch so that further work is done on that branch", I don't
> believe that means it has to be stated first. In fact, I would say
> that there are enough other use cases that the language should be
> sli
On 18 December 2012 08:13, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Philip Oakley" writes:
>
>> From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Monday, December 17,
>>> This is to "check out the branch" ;-)
>>> ...
>>
>> From a user perspective it's better to refer to the working directory
>> first rather than the internal mechan
"Philip Oakley" writes:
> From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Monday, December 17,
>> This is to "check out the branch" ;-)
>> ...
>
> From a user perspective it's better to refer to the working directory
> first rather than the internal mechanics.
>
>Prepare to work on , by updating the files in t
From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Monday, December 17,
2012 7:21 AM
Chris Rorvick writes:
The forms of checkout that do not take a path are lumped together in
the
DESCRIPTION section, but the description for this group is dominated
by
explanation of the -b|-B form. Split these apart for more clar
Johannes Sixt writes:
> Am 12/17/2012 9:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Here is what I tentatively have ...
>
> Thanks!
>
>> -'git checkout' [--detach] []::
>> +'git checkout' --detach []::
>> +'git checkout' ::
>>
>> -Update the index and working tree to reflect the specified
>> -commit
Am 12/17/2012 9:48, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Here is what I tentatively have ...
Thanks!
> -'git checkout' [--detach] []::
> +'git checkout' --detach []::
> +'git checkout' ::
>
> - Update the index and working tree to reflect the specified
> - commit and set HEAD to point directly to
Regards,
Andrew Ardill
On 17 December 2012 19:20, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 12/17/2012 8:21, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Chris Rorvick writes:
>>> 'git checkout' []::
>
> Is really optional in this form?
>
> BTW, what does plain 'git checkout' do? Just report ahead/behind information?
I thin
Here is what I tentatively have (so that I do not forget) on 'pu',
marked with "(squash???)", as a suggested update on top of Chris's
patches.
Documentation/git-checkout.txt | 29 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git c/Documentation/git-checko
Am 12/17/2012 8:21, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Chris Rorvick writes:
>> 'git checkout' []::
Is really optional in this form?
BTW, what does plain 'git checkout' do? Just report ahead/behind information?
>> +
>> +Update the index, working tree, and HEAD to reflect the
>> +specified bran
Chris Rorvick writes:
> The forms of checkout that do not take a path are lumped together in the
> DESCRIPTION section, but the description for this group is dominated by
> explanation of the -b|-B form. Split these apart for more clarity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Rorvick
> ---
> Documentation
17 matches
Mail list logo
