From: "Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:08 PM
Philip Oakley wrote:
Describe rebase in the description section.
It already does that. :) I think you mean "start with a summary",
which is a valuable improvement.
Yes.
Include a softer paraphrased version from the crytic, well-loved,
but sometimes parodied, Name description, and tell users that merge
commits are excluded by default.
I don't really follow this paragraph. Are you saying "The NAME line
is cryptic, but let's copy it anyway, since it is better than
nothing"?
I was keeping the 'cryptic/esoteric' NAME line, because it is commented
on in a few blogs [1]. It is accurate but let's not spoil those blogs...
The fundamental reason for the update was to introduce 'somewhere' in
the text the "excluding merge commits by default" note, and I couldn't
find an easy way of updating the NAME line, and then realised a softer
introduction wiould kill two birds with one stone.
[...]
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -16,6 +16,10 @@ SYNOPSIS
DESCRIPTION
-----------
+'git rebase' will transfer local commits, excluding merge commits
+by default, to the head of the branch's upstream, or onto a new base
+if given.
+
Not about this patch, but some day it would be nice to standardize on
one tense for the DESCRIPTION sections of manpages. Some git commands
use the imperative ("Reply local commits, excluding merge commits, on
top of ..."), some use the present indicative ("Replays local commits,
excluding merge commits, ..."), and some use the future ("Will replay
local commits, excluding merge commits, ...").
The traditional tense for Unix manpages is the present indicative.
But you are right to match the rest of the description here.
If <branch> is specified, 'git rebase' will perform an automatic
`git checkout <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
it remains on the current branch.
The description has become very long by now. I wonder if it's
possible to break it into chunks, like so?
DESCRIPTION
-----------
<brief description of the purpose of the command, including some token
mention of *why* a user would want to use it (e.g., "so that the
patches
apply cleanly to their new base").>
It proceeds using the following steps:
1. If <branch> is specified, ...
2. Decides which commits will need to be applied.
These are plain, non-merge commits that are ancestors of HEAD but
not of <upstream>.
3. Checks out <upstream>. (<Explanation that technically it
detaches HEAD at this step.>)
4. Reapplies the commits listed on step (2), one by one, in order.
If merge failures are encountered, the program will exit and allow
the user to resolve them and resume or cancel the rebase. See
the RESPONDING TO MERGE CONFLICTS section below for details.
5. Once all of the commits from step (2) have been applied, updates
<branch> to point to the new HEAD.
The result is an updated <branch> that ...
OPTIONS
-------
...
EXAMPLES
--------
Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":
...
Description of specific options like "--preserve-merges" and "--onto"
could move out of the DESCRIPTION section and to the OPTIONS section.
What do you think?
It's probably something I'd need help on (to ensure correctness). I'll
have a go based on your suggestions in the next few days.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
[1] http://steveko.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/10-things-i-hate-about-git/
section 3 'update'.
--
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