Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> It should replace what's in next. You can either start a new branch and
> revert what's in next, or I can prepare it on top of what's in next if
> you prefer.
I can just apply an interdiff if I wanted to, so that is no reason for
asking a resend.
The new text indeed looks much clearer, except for one part I am not
absolutely sure...
> +new content::
> +
> +You may also add new content that does not exist in the patch. Simply
> +add new lines, each starting with "{plus}".
> +
> +You can also perform more complex operations, such as modifying the
> +content to be staged by a "{plus}" line. However, note that this impacts
> +_only_ the index; the working tree file will remain unchanged, and will
> +appear to "undo" the content you have staged. Such operations should be
> +performed only if you know what you are doing.
This "However, note that" part should apply not only to newly introduced
{plus} lines but also to {plus} lines whose change were edited (lines from
"added content" and from post-image half of "modified content"), no?
I tried to be careless when reading the two paragraphs above, and managed
to get an incorrect impression that the caveat applies only to "more
complex operations", even though it actually applies not just the previous
"new content" but also "added/modified" content.
Thinking about it a bit more, it is worse than that. Turning " " into "-"
has the same "getting reverted" issue, no?
--
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