From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 5 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:24:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20150705191101.GB9815@flurp.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Christian Couder , git , Matthieu Moy , Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen , Nicola Paolucci To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 06 19:24:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZCA8N-0003GW-66 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:24:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753904AbbGFRYm (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:24:42 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.160.180]:36388 "EHLO mail-yk0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753881AbbGFRYl (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:24:41 -0400 Received: by ykdr198 with SMTP id r198so154445689ykd.3 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dii9zp9mR01CanqPKB43S4VJWxFxrDYg/JIWxH7QzpM=; b=pOgC1fBvsqtkfDiIy+kH2hvjKn5wFjHc9sj3qnYL0kZtXmKZPldvCoZDc8DesiP4rl 2chOcmFVxJl285FDO1v2R1QHCu52P3uDZh33bbSRvwh8RSBZojLABQO5p0bjpDjkQfeI shC2apBb8+ZkI7dQea3TcFscrS2NSOQUMsbPQ1b7PBkgbjSMs/tAPCtkDeSpWP4Rw5+1 6wmJC8dmb12yjay39XiM25yXKT3g8Fu+L0zsTJWYfEKy8fsNUu1s6C6EheDmizaoHcao C/5xyYhaDt+T0xO/CSy1rUerswpVSOqicDtzrfwE6guv17CSYP0islsr1w/oGFxBn6+g /U7Q== X-Received: by 10.170.138.134 with SMTP id f128mr60889387ykc.90.1436203480516; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.12.129 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: aLl3iOkghXqVO0naX2OYHkcrINw Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine 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 `, and cleanup of leftover administrative files, after `` 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?