fixed reversed references in bundle create description #767
Conversation
|
I'm not very familiar with git bundle, but at first sight I would say there are a few more changed needed?
still, I don't know what's the 'policy' about blog posts @peff ? |
| @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ via a bundle on a usb stick or email. | |||
|
|
|||
| First we need to determine the range of commits we want to include in the bundle. | |||
| The easiest way would have been to drop a branch when we started, so we could | |||
| say `start_branch..master` or `master ^start_branch`, but if we didn't we can | |||
| say `master..start_branch` or `master ^start_branch`, but if we didn't we can | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused. I thought the article was claiming that you would set start_branch ahead of time, so that you could then later use it as a fence-post for seeing what is new on master. In which case start_branch..master would be the right thing.
If it does need to be flipped, then the second bit would need it too (i.e., master..start_branch is ^master start_branch).
Maybe using a different name than start_branch would help make this less confusing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assumed that after cloning the bundle into master, he created a start_branch where he would do the work. not sure if that's what you are saying, or the opposite
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the "would have been..." is implying that we created start_branch long ago (perhaps right after cloning) and there has since been work on master that we want to send in the bundle. If that is the case, using a tag would probably be a little more straightforward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point, and it makes sense. Should we discard the PR then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we discard the PR then?
I think so, but I'm open to @tmornini pointing out something we've missed.
I don't mind correcting factual problems or typos in them, but I do think we should consider dropping them if the content is now in progit2. I think they mostly functioned as a sort of "errata" for topics that came about after the original progit was published. |
|
I do find blog posts to bring another way of explaining the subject, that may be clear to some. I remember to read the blog post about reset which made everything clearer. Still, I do question their existence in the git-scm site, especially since no posts have been done for long time (last one was in 2011) |
|
closing this PR. feel free to point out anything that we may be missing, and we'll look at this PR again @tmornini |
Really appreciate this document, noticed a small change during actual usage...