From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: git branch documentation improvements Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:22:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4BE7A629.7050709@viscovery.net> References: <201005070024.41172.ahartmetz@gmail.com> <4BE3BF2F.8050903@viscovery.net> <201005081839.37790.ahartmetz@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jon Seymour To: Andreas Hartmetz X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 10 08:22:44 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBMO3-0000ht-Dj for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 08:22:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754820Ab0EJGWi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 02:22:38 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:50497 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752890Ab0EJGWi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2010 02:22:38 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBMNu-0006yY-LL; Mon, 10 May 2010 08:22:35 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4522C1660F; Mon, 10 May 2010 08:22:34 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 In-Reply-To: <201005081839.37790.ahartmetz@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 5/8/2010 18:39, schrieb Andreas Hartmetz: > On Friday 07 May 2010 09:20:15 Johannes Sixt wrote: >> But what is wrong with "start-point"? It precisely conveys the meaning of >> the parameter. >> > Look at -f: as far as I understand it moves the branch *head*, so start-point > is plain wrong. The "root" of the branch is not moved, or only moved > indirectly (not sure if the latter is allowed). Huh? The purpose of -f is not to *move* a branch head, but to say "trust me, I know what I'm doing". Why would "start-point" not be suitable in this case? -- Hannes