On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:19:40 -0500 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +In the command's second form, creates a new branch named <branchname>. > +The branch will start out with head pointing to the commit > +<start-point>. If no <start-point> is given, the branch will start > +out with head pointing to the tip of the currently checked out branch, > +or the currently checked out commit if no branch is checked out. The first sentence here doesn't quite work, perhaps drop the "In". But the whole thing is a bit verbose, what about just: The command's second form creates a new branch named <branchname> which points to the current HEAD or <start-point> if given. > <start-point>:: > - The new branch will be created with a HEAD equal to this. It may > - be given as a branch name, a commit-id, or a tag. If this option > - is omitted, the current branch is assumed. > + The new branch head will point to this commit. It may be > + given as a branch name, a commit-id, or a tag. If this > + option is omitted, the currently checked out branch head > + is used, or the current commit if no branch is checked > + out. Maybe it's not worth worrying about, but couldn't the last sentence be just: If this option is omitted, the current HEAD will be used instead. Sean P.S. Patches 3 and 4 in this series would be better as a single patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html