From: Kevin Bracey Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:48:49 GMT Subject: Re: Reset by checkout? Message-ID: <538E26A1.5020509@bracey.fi> In-Reply-To: On 03/06/2014 00:54, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Not that I can think of a better way to update these descriptions, > and not that I am opposing to update these descriptions to make it > easier for new people to learn, but I am not sure if these "treat > ORIG_HEAD and the changes since that commit as separate entities" > is a good approach to do so. > > Somewhat frustrated, not by your patch but by being unable to > suggest a better way X-<. > > I know. I started off myself knowing what I meant to say, and then got bogged down somewhat trying to be detailed enough for a full explanation. I think it's just inherently very hard for anyone to visualise what these do in the /general/ case. This is one of those commands where the structure of a man page gets in the way. We have to give a summary of what the mode options /do/, but that's not what people want to know. They want to know what they're /for/. (And, to some extent, reset, like checkout, is two separate commands. One being the path manipulator, the other being the HEAD manipulator. Just bogs us down further). I think these are the most important HEAD resets, covering 95%+ of uses: git reset --soft HEAD~ git reset HEAD~ git reset --keep HEAD~ git reset --keep ORIG_HEAD git reset --keep @{} git reset --keep (and possibly git reset --merge although I think this should be fully covered by "git xxx --abort" - maybe a couple of those missing like git stash pop/apply --abort?) Anything more than those, I think, are pretty far-fetched. I can't 100% grok "--soft/--mixed" onto a different branch, for example. (But at least we do define those cases in the A/B/C/D "discussion" section for the real geeks.) Maybe we just need to tighten up the EXAMPLES section? Give it easy-to-locate /--soft/--mixed/--keep subheadings, covering all those common use cases (in clean trees...), including a before/after git status views. Then normal users could skip the top technical section waffling about indexes and go straight there instead. Kevin