Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Jul 6, 2015, 17:24 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTfkDqSDRqDjA=CNkT1c7Fo0zaLiwi2bAbCLZxPHi5=Bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa8v92qdf.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>> I'm not familiar with the criteria for deciding what merits mention
>> in the newsletter. Is the recent introduction of git-worktree and the
>> attendant relocation of "add" and "prune" functionality worthy? If
>> so, perhaps the following write-up would be suitable?
>
> One issue I had with this text was that it was not immediately clear
> what the end-game UI of the feature was.  Is "checkout --to" they
> way the user is expected to trigger this?  It appears in the very
> early part of the multi-paragraph description and I suspect that the
> majority of the users would think that way, not with "worktree add"
> that appears a lot later.

I had the same concern when proof-reading, but wasn't sure if the concern was warranted. Since you reacted to the text in the same way, I'd say the concern was justified.

How about this instead: prefixing with "As originally implemented", with a couple s/is/was/ thrown in...

    As originally implemented, creation of linked-worktrees was
    accomplished via `git checkout --to <path> <branch>`, and cleanup
    of leftover administrative files, after `<path>` is deleted, was
    done with `git prune --worktrees`. However, a recent unrelated
    change to `git prune` led to a discussion that concluded that
    worktree-related maintenance functionality didn't belong in `git
    prune`.

Is that sufficient to clue in the reader that "checkout --to" is not final form, or should we mention "worktree add" and "worktree prune" upfront?