Minor language simplification

[ethanwhite]

Language like "do so" and "for posterity" may be confusing for non-native
English speakers. This makes this language more straight forward.

This PR is currently missing updated html because until #68 goes in the diff shows far more change that has actually happened. I'll be happy to add the html changes after #68 is merged.

[rgaiacs]

+1 to merge.

[wking]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:59:33PM -0700, Ethan White wrote:

• Minor language simplification

Looks good to me.

[wking]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 04:01:02PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:59:33PM -0700, Ethan White:

• Minor language simplification

Looks good to me.

Actually, we may want to keep the “as a commit” qualifier, since Git
does record the file at ‘git add …’ time:

$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/a/.git/
$ echo stuff > mars.txt
$ git add mars.txt
$ rm mars.txt
rm: remove regular file ‘mars.txt’? y
removed ‘mars.txt’
$ git --no-pager status
On branch master

Initial commit

Changes to be committed:
(use "git rm --cached ..." to unstage)

      new file:   mars.txt

Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add/rm ..." to update what will be committed)
(use "git checkout -- ..." to discard changes in working directory)

      deleted:    mars.txt

$ git checkout -- mars.txt
$ cat mars.txt
stuff

It's just that without a commit, doing something like checking out
another branch will clobber the index (unless you stashed it). After
the index is removed, the added mars.txt blob (and the tree containing
it) will be dangling, and will eventually be cleaned up by Git's
garbage collection. We certainly don't want to get into all of that
with novices, but I don't think we want an unqualified “hasn't
recorded these changes yet” either.

So I'd suggest:

… but it hasn't recorded these changes as a commit yet.

[iglpdc]

Thanks @ethanwhite ! I agree with @wking that keeping "as commit" would be clearer: "... these changes as a commit yet".

[daisieh]

@ethanwhite: I merged the big reorg PR #58, so please refactor the change against that new file.

[ethanwhite]

I've refactored this against #58 and made the fix suggested by @wking.