From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, December 17,
2012 9:13 PM
"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, December 17,
This is to "check out the branch" ;-)
...
From a user perspective it's better to refer to the working directory
first rather than the internal mechanics.
Prepare to work on <branch>, by updating the files in the
working tree and index to the branch's previous content, and
pointing HEAD to it.
I agree that the mention of "pointing HEAD to" may be better to be
rephrased in the user facing terms.
Because the primary purpose of "git checkout <branch>" is to "check
out the branch so that further work is done on that branch", that
aspect of the behaviour should be mentioned first.
That part is OK, but it is a bit tautological.
Updating of the
working tree files and the index is the implemenation detail of
starting to work on that branch.
It was this part that I felt needed the worker's work-tree mentioned
first.
It could be argued that workers think they do work on the tree, and that
the branch name is an administrative place holder.
When the two sentences are back to back it was OK, as you had still
included the key element of my suggestion.
So your suggestion is going backwards, I'd have to say.
A misunderstanding of the suggestion perhaps?
Philip
--
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