Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> NAME
> git-rebase - Forward-port local commits to the updated upstream head
>
> => Quite technical already.
Very much true, and I would say the description is "technically
correct" in the sense that "it is not wrong per-se". There are a
few points that this fails to state and some that this overspecifies.
- Rebase is about changing the base of an existing branch, but the
description does not even mention the word "branch" [*1*].
- There is nothing "forward" about it. I often see myself applying
(tentatively) incoming patches on top of whatever commit I happen
to have checked out, review it and then rebasing it to apply to
older maintenance track if the topic is about fixing an old bug.
- There is no point stressing "local" commits; all the operations
you do to munge commits are local.
Perhaps something like this instead?
git-rebase - Rebuild a branch on top of a different commit
> DESCRIPTION
> If <branch> is specified, git rebase will perform an automatic
> git checkout <branch> before doing anything else. Otherwise it
> remains on the current branch.
>
> => Ouch, do we really want to start a documentation like this?
No. We should say what the command does and what the command is for
in more general terms first and then describe how arguments can be
used to affect it.
> So, the DESCRIPTION part can definitely be improved IMHO. Your notation
> <graft-point>, <exclude-from> and <include-from> may be an improvement
> already.
<graft-point>, <exclude-from> and <include-from> aren't technically
wrong per-se, but I do not think bulk-replacing the words currently
used in the manual page with these is an improvement at all, unless
the mental picture the explanation draws is also updated to match
these new words.
reBASE is about changing the base of the affected branch, and the
mental picture the current documentation draws is "there is a plant,
from which you cut a branch, scion. Then you graft the scion onto
understock". It calls the original tree (that the branch being
transplanted is part of) the "old-base", and the understock (that
the scion is going to be grafted onto) the "new-base". The word
"graft" in "graft point" may better convey that we are doing a
transplanting than the current wording, but the word "point" makes
it unclear to the readers if it refers to the "point" where the
scion was cut from or where it is going to transplanted to, I am
afraid.
Also <exclude-from> and <include-from> is probably too operational,
and describing the command with only these two words would miss the
point that the command is about transplanting a branch. It is true
that in order to transplant a branch, you first need to figure out
the set of commits whose effects are to be replayed, you would need
<exclude-from>..<include-from> range computation, but it is an
lower-level implemention detail.
> Some concrete examples may help too, like "I started developing against
> origin/foo, on local branch bar, and now want to rebase my work on top
> of origin/boz".
Very much so, but I wonder if it would be better to just refer to
examples in the tutorial (and if we do not have good examples there,
we should add some).
[Footnote]
*1* Yes, "git rebase $newbase $commit^0" form can be used to
transplant a part of history leading to the $commit that does
not sit at the tip of a branch (nor repoint a branch to point
at the result at the end) as if $commit^0 were at the tip of
some branch, but the key word here is "as if". The user is
allowed to use the command pretending something that is not a
branch is a branch, but what it tells us is that the command
*is* about a branch.
--
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