Re: [PATCH] Documentation: reset: describe new "--keep" option

[Peter Baumann <waste.manager@gmx.de>]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:38:18PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Sunday 07 March 2010 06:52:46 Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> > > and give an example to show how it can be used.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Thanks.  With the example I think I can tell others that this at least has
> > one known use case that is not totally whacky.
> > 
> > I haven't re-read Peter Baumann's comments that you dismissed as a
> > mis-reading of your added documentation, but if somebody _can_ misread
> > what you wrote, that is a sign that it has a room to be improved for
> > clarity.
> 
> Ok, so instead of:
> 
> > +--keep::
> > +     Resets the index to match the tree recorded by the named commit,
> > +     but keep changes in the working tree. Aborts if the reset would
> > +     change files that are already modified in the working tree.
> 
> what about:
> 
> --keep::
>      Resets the index to match the tree recorded by the named commit,

My reading of this (non native english speaker): Given the --keep flag,
*only* the index is updated.

>      but changed files in the working tree are kept untouched. 
>      Aborts if the reset would touch any of them.

Huh? Does it touch the work tree, too? You propably know by now where this
leads :-)

I have to admit I like Junio's version better, because at least it is clear
that the worktree is also touched.

--
Peter