Re: Naming the --forec option [[Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation]]
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 12, 2021, 16:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <60ec6a9d1ffd6_a45252083d@natae.notmuch>
- In-Reply-To
- <e9c2b9cd-edfb-cbed-9638-382a6b0da59b@mfriebe.de>
Martin wrote:
> On 11/07/2021 01:18, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> >> Also "--reset" does not have the same alerting properties to me, as > >> "force" or "discard" have. > >> This may be my English, but to me "reset" does not have the same > >> alerting property. > > > > OK, maybe it's a language issue. I'm not a native English speaker, my > > mother tongue is Spanish, but I'm pretty sure my understanding of > > "reset" is what most people understand: set again. > > I am German. And yes "set again" (sometimes "restart", but that does not > matter here) > > If a branch is set, as base and head. Then "reset" means to set those > two again. > > "set again" => They will still be there. > (changed indeed, but there) > > The commits hold by that branch, are not "set again". > They may become unreachable. > > The word "reset" gives no indication on knock on effects. > However, I prefer if those effects are made clear.
I gave plenty of examples where "reset" implies the previous state is gone after it.
-- Felipe Contreras