On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 1:09 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/23, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > The documentation for this option jumps right in with "With `add`", > > without explaining that `add` is a sub-command of "git worktree". > > Together with rather odd grammatical structure of the remainder of the > > sentence, the description can be difficult for newcomers to understand. > > Clarify by improving the grammar and mentioning "git worktree add" > > explicitly. > > Thanks, this reads much better indeed. I was briefly wondering if a > similar change is needed in the documentation for the 'git worktree' > command itself. It currently reads: > > With `worktree add <path>`, without `<commit-ish>`, instead > of creating a new branch from HEAD, if there exists a tracking > branch in exactly one remote matching the basename of `<path>`, > base the new branch on the remote-tracking branch, and mark > the remote-tracking branch as "upstream" from the new branch. > > I do think the documentation for the config option is slightly easier > to read, especially with your improvements below. Dunno if it's worth > adjusting the test in the 'git worktree' documentation as well? Such a change to git-worktree.txt could be done, though I think it's outside the scope of this patch since "With ...," is not nearly so confusing in the context of git-worktree.txt given that the reader _knows_ that he/she is reading (exclusively) about "git worktree". Also, almost all of the options in git-worktree.txt are phrased "With ...,", so such a change would be more all-encompassing.
