From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git add -e documentation: rephrase note Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <7vaazn7tg4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20091014222628.GK6115@genesis.frugalware.org> <20091014230434.GB29664@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20091019000900.GV6115@genesis.frugalware.org> <20091019043418.GD7170@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20091019050456.GA15706@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vbpk4aqop.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091019063446.GA1457@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Vajna , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 19 09:07:43 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MzmLE-0001zd-6g for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:07:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754924AbZJSHH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754009AbZJSHH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:29 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:59331 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754004AbZJSHH2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:28 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6BB7D832; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:32 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=fmWdJA6wqACzw7EkjLLWLdRCx1A=; b=QnhqdT 71V+lytIgP0df/3i7RsOYI8cgbni+Wm7BLrYO1QS+CSNIWsrv6HzBop4TG9EhD+/ s/gQ47naz5fLd1DEkqCLMT4+7yU1i9iPbbqdqNQvSXct7ca3ztLPL6ZALNEJlDMz qI/XHQJxKtI1xSju9YptWnecuuc7bubHjvJMQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=df0lOh9p4V95k+YZMnxjjiJUxNlX3bJL 40RC7d97E1tp8oGOITM1oiHBlbISSg+GiFb0hhEymuShTWn8VEAdb4nPlAi+HjKp zPRw9QCBZ/XGMffxmbgG4gHk4ieNqgWXzhossQh2oiP4q/y2isavzqQhVVAGQMsT t5MbLq6BSvU= Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130B67D830; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9F5B7D82E; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20091019063446.GA1457@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon\, 19 Oct 2009 02\:34\:46 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 10238522-BC7E-11DE-B2EA-A67CBBB5EC2E-77302942!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: >> > +* remove addition lines (don't stage the line) >> >> This is more like "don't add the line", isn't it? Also if this "+" line >> has corresponding "-" line (i.e. it is a "rewrite to this" line), removal >> of such a line would mean "instead of rewriting, remove it". > > I was trying not to use "add" because we are already talking about > addition and removal in the patch itself, Ah, I wasn't saying "add" is more kosher than "stage" by the above. By "don't add", I meant that the user is saying "I inserted a new line to the file, but I actually did not want to add that line to the file for the next commit." In other words, I was more focusing on the act of inserting the line to the contents, not on staging the change to the index. > ... So I am not sure I agree that using "add" is any > better than "stage", but I don't feel that strongly about it. That is Ok; the comment was not about stage vs add. > But beyond that, yes, you are right that removing a "+" line may have a > different conceptual meaning to the user depending on the surrounding > text. I wonder if such a "check-list" document really makes much sense, > given that using "-e" at all means you need to understand the patch > format and what makes sense (i.e., anybody who understands 'patch' knows > that you can't just delete context lines and expect it to apply). Yeah, that is really what I wanted people who are in this discussion to eventually realize ;-) > Yeah, again, this comes down to understanding what you are doing: