Re: [PATCH v2] git-checkout.txt: Document "git checkout <pathspec>" better
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 17, 2015, 19:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqpp4u6swo.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqh9q6gsdt.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes: > >> My v3 will probably use the original line: >> git-checkout - Checkout a branch or paths to the working tree > > I think mentionning "Switch branch" was a real improvement. For someone > not familiar with the version control vocabulary, "checkout" does not > mean much (just looked in a dictionary, it talks about payment and > leaving a room in a hotel ...). And someone not understanding what > "checkout" means in this context won't be helped much reading the > description and getting "checkout" there.
Or, borrow a book from a library, which I think is the closest analogy for this operation. But you are right. It is suboptimal to explain "checkout" in terms of "checkout" ;-).
> But as you say, it copies into the workspace, so "copy a previous > version into the workspace" sounds good to me.
I am afraid that "previous" would lead to "Ah, you mean HEAD~1?" confusion. In any case, you cannot copy what hasn't yet been created, "previous" is superfluous.
I think "restore" also by definition has to go back to _some_ existing version, not a future yet-to-be-created one, so "restore to some previous state" is superfluous; in that sense, I find that "restore working tree files" may still be the one that makes most sense, at least to me, among the phrases floated in this thread so far.
> Basically, I'm fine with anything starting with "Switch branches or", > but please do change the headline ;-).
Likewise; I agree "switch branches or" part is good.