Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-branch.txt: document -f correctly

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:46:22 +0100

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 17.03.2009 17:37:
> Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> 'git branch -f a b' resets a to b when a exists, rather then deleting a.
>> Say so in the documentation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>> Something like this?
>>
>> BTW, I noticed that 'git-subcmd' is used everywhere in here which does
>> not feel right, but I followed the existing style, leaving a consistent
>> clean-up for a later patch. Also, typesetting is inconsistent:
>> We have <branch> as well as `<branch>` when the text talks about the
>> options. Do we have a style guide or such?
>>
>>  Documentation/git-branch.txt |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
>> index 6103d62..27b73bc 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
>> @@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ OPTIONS
>>  	based sha1 expressions such as "<branchname>@\{yesterday}".
>>  
>>  -f::
>> -	Force the creation of a new branch even if it means deleting
>> -	a branch that already exists with the same name.
>> +	Reset <branchname> to <startpoint> if <branchname> exists
>> +	already. Without `-f` 'git-branch' refuses to change an existing branch.
> 
> And what happens if the branchname does not exist?

Well, the standard behaviour of "git branch" is described in the
"description", the meaning of the options under "options"...
We could add

	If <branchname> does not exist it is created and '-f' has no effect.

although that seems a bit talkative.

> 
>>  
>>  -m::
>>  	Move/rename a branch and the corresponding reflog.
>> -- 
>> 1.6.2.149.g6462