From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2025 16:17:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] doc: git-reset: clarify `git reset <pathspec>`
Message-ID: <xmqqy0p8uqu5.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <9EB375A8-CDD0-4717-B1DF-32DC3078A50A@gmail.com>

Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:

>> Le 17 oct. 2025 à 19:25, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
>> 
>> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> `git reset (--patch | -p) [<tree-ish>] [--] [<pathspec>...]`::
>>> -    Interactively select hunks in the difference between the index
>>> -    and _<tree-ish>_ (defaults to `HEAD`).  The chosen hunks are applied
>>> -    in reverse to the index.
>>> +    Interactively select changes from the difference between the index
>>> +    and the specified commit or tree (which defaults to `HEAD`).
>>> +    The chosen changes are unstaged.
>>> +
>>> This means that `git reset -p` is the opposite of `git add -p`, i.e.
>>> -you can use it to selectively reset hunks. See the "Interactive Mode"
>>> -section of linkgit:git-add[1] to learn how to operate the `--patch` mode.
>>> +you can use it to selectively unstage changes. See the "Interactive Mode"
>>> +section of linkgit:git-add[1] to learn how to use the `--patch` option.
>> 
>> I do not see a good reason why we avoid saying the noun "patch",
>> especially when we see it in the option.  If we were allowed to say
>> "patch" here, "changes from the difference between ..." can be
>> rephrased to "parts of the patch that makes the index match the
>> specified commit", which may be simpler.
>
> I think the issue was the word « hunk », not « patch ».

I know.  That is exactly where my question comes from.