[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062)
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062) |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:31:22 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:24:35PM +0000, address@hidden 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
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), (continued)
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2012/01/15
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2012/01/15
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), dak, 2012/01/16
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2012/01/16
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), dak, 2012/01/16
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), janek . lilypond, 2012/01/17
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), janek . lilypond, 2012/01/17
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), dak, 2012/01/18
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2012/01/19
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), janek . lilypond, 2012/01/19
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2012/01/20
- Re: Issue 2100: Explanation of branches for CG (issue 5539062), janek . lilypond, 2012/01/20