On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:46:32PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
Show 46 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> writes:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/user-manual.txt | 8 ++++----
> >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> >> index d99adc6..a169ef0 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> >> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ Bisecting: 3537 revisions left to test after this
> >> If you run "git branch" at this point, you'll see that git has
> >> temporarily moved you to a new branch named "bisect". This branch
> >> points to a commit (with commit id 65934...) that is reachable from
> >> -v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
> >> +"master" but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
> >> it crashes. Assume it does crash. Then:
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > This hunk and the last hunk I do not have any problem with.
> >
> >> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ If you make a commit that you later wish you hadn't, there are two
> >> fundamentally different ways to fix the problem:
> >>
> >> 1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done
> >> - by the previous commit. This is the correct thing if your
> >> + by the old commit. This is the correct thing if your
> >> mistake has already been made public.
> >>
> >> 2. You can go back and modify the old commit. You should
> >
> > But is this an improvement or just a churn?
>
> I believe this is an improvement. It's more precise. With this change
> it's crystal clear that both (1) and (2) above mean the same commit by
> calling it "the old commit". Before the change, when I read this the
> first time, I've got the term "previous" here literally, i.e., as the
> last commit made, and I thought that if the commit in question is the
> last one, I should do (1), otherwise -- (2). This confusion admittedly
> vanished rather quickly, but it did happen.