Re: [PATCH] Update git rebase documentation to clarify HEAD behavior

> Cody Sehl <cody.sehl@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The first few paragraphs in the git-rebase.txt documentation lay out the 
>> steps git takes during a rebase:
>> 1. everything from `<upstream>..HEAD` is saved to a temporary area
>> 2. `HEAD` is set to `<upstream>`
>> 3. the changes held in the temporary area are applied one by one in order 
>> on top of the new `HEAD`
>>
>> The second step was described using the phrase `The current branch is 
>> reset to <upstream>`, which is true (because `HEAD` == current branch), 
>> but not clear.
>> ---
>
> Please wrap your lines to reasonable lengths like 70 columns or so.
> Please sign off your patch.
>
>>  Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> index de222c8..c47ca11 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ of commits that would be shown by `git log 
>> <upstream>..HEAD`; or by
>>  description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the
>>  `--root` option is specified.
>>
>> -The current branch is reset to <upstream>, or <newbase> if the
>> +HEAD is reset to <upstream>, or <newbase> if the
>>  --onto option was supplied.  This has the exact same effect as
>>  `git reset --hard <upstream>` (or <newbase>).  ORIG_HEAD is set
>>  to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
>
> This is describing an ancient behaviour before 6fd2f5e60d ("rebase:
> operate on a detached HEAD", 2007-11-08) in v1.5.4 timeframe.  We
> apparently failed to update the description.
>
> This depends on the desired technical detail of the description, but
> a correct rewrite would be "HEAD is detached at <upstream>, or
> <newbase>, and ORIG_HEAD is set to point at the tip of the branch
> before this happens".  Detaching the HEAD at <upstream> no longer
> has the same effect as "git reset --hard <upstream>" (or <newbase>),
> so that sentence must go.  It was the primary point of the ancient
> change at 6fd2f5e60d after all.
>
> And then there is a new step (to be numbered 4. in your description
> in the proposed log message), which updates the tip of the branch to
> the resulting HEAD (after replaying all these changes) and check the
> branch out, which needs to be added.  Perhaps after "one by one, in
> order."  Oh, the mention of "reapplied to the current branch" also
> needs to be updated to "reapplied to the detached HEAD", too.
>
> On the other hand, if we do not aim for that deep level of technical
> correctness, but want to tell a white lie to make it easier to
> understand at the conceptual level to new readers who haven't
> grasped the detached HEAD, then the current description is fine.  By
> bringing up "HEAD", you seem to be aiming for techincal correctness
> (which I tend to agree is a good direction to go in this part of the
> documentation), so the existing text needs a bit more work than your
> patch to be brought to the modern world.
>