On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I'm not familiar with the criteria for deciding what merits mention
>> in the newsletter. Is the recent introduction of git-worktree and the
>> attendant relocation of "add" and "prune" functionality worthy? If
>> so, perhaps the following write-up would be suitable?
>
> One issue I had with this text was that it was not immediately clear
> what the end-game UI of the feature was. Is "checkout --to" they
> way the user is expected to trigger this? It appears in the very
> early part of the multi-paragraph description and I suspect that the
> majority of the users would think that way, not with "worktree add"
> that appears a lot later.
I had the same concern when proof-reading, but wasn't sure if the
concern was warranted. Since you reacted to the text in the same way,
I'd say the concern was justified.
How about this instead: prefixing with "As originally implemented",
with a couple s/is/was/ thrown in...
As originally implemented, creation of linked-worktrees was
accomplished via `git checkout --to <path> <branch>`, and cleanup
of leftover administrative files, after `<path>` is deleted, was
done with `git prune --worktrees`. However, a recent unrelated
change to `git prune` led to a discussion that concluded that
worktree-related maintenance functionality didn't belong in `git
prune`.
Is that sufficient to clue in the reader that "checkout --to" is not
final form, or should we mention "worktree add" and "worktree prune"
upfront?
--
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