Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > "but not the working tree itself" is not incorrect per-se, but misses the > point. How about... > > A merge is made by combining the changes made in "branchname" and > the changes made up to the latest commit in your current branch > since their histories forke. The work tree is overwritten by the > result of the merge when this combining is done cleanly, or > overwritten by a half-merged results when this combining results > in conflicts. Therefore, ... Maybe better. OTOH, it reveals another problem: Your "the work tree is overwritten by ..." tend to imply that the result is not commited, while the normal case is indeed to create a merge commit automatically. In its current state, the doc jumps to conflict resolution and how to commit after resolving them without saying "oh, normally this is over, Git did the commit for you". And for people comming from SVN, thinking "merge = update", it's not obvious at all that a merge should result in a commit. So, I'll resend with one more paragraph talking about autocommit. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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