Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation
- From
Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 11, 2021, 09:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87zgutfb9m.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
- In-Reply-To
- <1e18c4ed-6975-5041-4b4f-75c4d3d21860@mfriebe.de>
Martin <git@mfriebe.de> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> > As I said, I try to avoid reset, and also there is no "--reset" to match. Only a "reset" command, and it does a wide range of diff things > > -force-new <branch-name> <commit> > -N <branch-name> <commit> > See the --new option. > Allows to [re-]use the name of an existing branch. > This may drop commits of that branch. > > Or > See the --new option. > Can use the name of an existing branch. > Removing that branch may drop commits. > If needs must > "Removing" => "Resetting" > > > Or even shorter > See the --new option. > Allows to re-use a branch-name and may drop commits > [resetting it].
I'm strongly against "may drop commits". I see what you mean, but "drop" sounds wrong to me, and we should not be plain wrong in the manuals.
Maybe:
"Allows to reuse <branch-name>. Commits from the former branch may become unreferenced."
At least this it technically correct and doesn't sound that utterly fatal.
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov