Thanks for all your hints and thoughts. I'll be sending a v2 in a minute. There's just one point where I chose not to follow completely for now: Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 14.09.2010 02:35: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: [snip] >> @@ -57,22 +58,30 @@ linkgit:git-add[1]). >> been updated. This is the default action. >> >> --hard:: >> - Matches the working tree and index to that of the tree being >> - switched to. Any changes to tracked files in the working tree >> - since <commit> are lost. >> + Resets the index and working tree. Any changes to tracked files in the >> + working tree since <commit> are lost. > > Explaining what "reset" does using the undefined word "reset" smells > somewhat wrong. Not that "matches" is any better, but at least the > original says "to that of the tree", which you seem to have lost, so there > is no indication what they are reset _to_. I don't think the above is a > good change for this reason. The idea was to define "reset" once (in the paragraph right before the list of modes) and then use it without repeating that. I tried to make this a bit clearer now by emphasising the term "reset" more in the leading paragraph. [snip] > It may be just me, but "unstaged" sounds as if you once have staged and > then changed your mind and took it back. "... which have changes that > haven't been added" might be clearer. We use "unstaged" in the meaning of "not staged/added yet" in other places, as well - but in surprisingly few I have to admit! I went with your version here. Michael -- 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