From: John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:07:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Modify description file to say what this file is
Message-ID: <43d8ce650903032307i512268f4sa3240c517b51d0b4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vy6w2n3cz.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi Junio,
  Did you commit my patches?  I don't see them yet in git.git ?

John Tapsell

2009/2/19 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
> [PATCH 1/6] Modify description file to say what this file is
>
> Looks good.
>
> [PATCH 2/6] Google has renamed the imap folder
>
> Jeff already pointed out an obvious thinko; I could fix-up locally (just
> ask).
>
> [PATCH 3/6] Improve error message for branching an existing branch
>
> The extra sentence is useless noise to annoy users and make them shout
> "none of your business!" back to git.
>
> I would probably get this error message "already exists." more from
> forgetting to say "-f" in this sequence:
>
>    $ git branch -f pu next
>    $ git checkout pu
>    $ sh rebuild-pu-script
>
> to rebuild pu on top of updated next, and "did you mean to checkout?"
> misses the mark by a kilometer.
>
> [PATCH 4/6] Improve error message for git-filter-branch
>
> Looks good, with Sverre's rewording would be better, which I could locally
> squash in.  Needs signoff, which I could locally forge (just ask to fix-up
> and forge).
>
> [PATCH 5/6] Change output "error: " to "Error: " etc
>
> Jeff is right, and the patch is wrong.
>
> [PATCH 6/6] Mention to the user that they can reorder commits
>
> The placement of the new message does not feel right, as adding anything
> near "If you remove ... WILL BE LOST" will cloud out that message which is
> more important.
>
> I think it should come near or perhaps even before Commands, if we were to
> add anything here.
>
> But I am afraid that the proposed new message will hurt the clueless users
> more than it would help them.
>
> The cheat-sheet at the top is not for learning what the command can do for
> the first time.  It is there to remind people (who already have general
> idea on what can be done) how exactly the commands are spelled.  If
> somebody does not even know that the purpose of rebase-i is to amend and
> resequence, he will more likely destroy his history by blindly using the
> command without knowing what is going on, than making a lucky guess.
>
> For that reason, a more appropriate line to add, if we were to add
> anything, might be:
>
>  #  s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit
>  #
> +# If you do not know what is going on, remove everything and exit the editor!
> +#
>  # If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.
>  # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
>
>