On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:21:44AM -0500, Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM, John Tapsell <johnf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> But how would a similar work flow except there are multiple fixes > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Yes. Great. IMHO that type of documentation is what is needed in > > techbase. > > in fact, that's exactly the type that does *not* belong there. there is > enough generic git documentation out there, and bloating techbase by > duplicating it all won't make it simpler to use. the right way is > stating the desired goals, mentioning a few key phrases ("interactive > rebase" in this case) and linking to some external source.
I very much disagree with this. We need the basic recipes there. With short statements I then start searching around in the web, find some blogs, some man pages, mess around, and in the end just take a local diff, get a fresh clone because everything is messed up, and apply the local diff in one step. At least that's the experience I had when trying to merge with conflicts and short remarks like "do a interactive rebase" or something like that, which lead me into an editor window which showed strange things where I didn't understand what I should do and when I did something things just got worse. Alex