Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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: -- 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