Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-commit: rewrite to make it more end-user friendly.
- From
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
- Date
- Dec 10, 2006, 00:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612091941230.2630@xanadu.home>
- In-Reply-To
- <200612100130.48812.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Very nice. > > On Saturday 09 December 2006 06:48, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > DESCRIPTION > > ----------- > > -Updates the index file for given paths, or all modified files if > > -'-a' is specified, and makes a commit object. The command specified > > -by either the VISUAL or EDITOR environment variables are used to edit > > -the commit log message. > > +Use 'git commit' when you want to record your changes into the repository > > +along with a log message describing what the commit is about. All changes > > +to be committed must be explicitly identified using one of the following > > What about: "... must be explicitly identified (that is, > must be "staged") ..." > > This way, it will be clear for the reader that "to explicitly identify" is the > same thing as "to stage", which is used quite often later.
Hmmm, maybe, maybe not. Although I don't have particular problem with "staging area", I'm still unconvinced about the verb "stage".
Show 13 quoted lines
> > +methods: > > > > -Several environment variable are used during commits. They are > > -documented in gitlink:git-commit-tree[1]. > > +1. by using gitlink:git-add[1] to incrementally "add" changes to the > > + next commit before using the 'commit' command (Note: even modified > > + files must be "added"); > > Regarding this note: Of course unmodified files do not have to be added ;-) > > What about: "(Note: changes in files already known to git, and even new > changes done after a previous `git add` for a given file, still must > be staged again)"
This is getting too long for what it is worth in this case IMHO.