Re: VC mode and git

[martin rudalics]

>>     It is a good idea to examine what you are about to push, before
>>     actually doing so, because fixing mistakes before pushing is much
>>     easier (see the next section). To do that, use the command git diff
>>     origin/master. If you want to show your unpushed commits with their
>>     commit log messages, use git show origin/master.. instead. If you only
>>     have one local commit you want to push, just git show is enough.
>>
>> And here I would try to tell that the outputs of plain 'git diff' and
>> 'git status' are different from their outputs before the commit.
>
> In the new version, "git diff" is no longer mentioned,

Hmm...  I still see

  We recommend invoking git status and git diff to view the changes
  which will be committed, before invoking git commit -a.

> and "git
> status" was never mentioned before, so do you still think we need to
> say something about that?

Maybe it's only me.  git adopts a principle epitomized by, for example,

   Typically you would want comparison with the latest commit, so if you
   do not give <commit>, it defaults to HEAD.

which is completely unintuitive IMO.  Why should the output of two "git
diff"s differ just because I committed something in between?

> But the full text says this:
>
>    This merge could fail due to conflicts between your changes and
>    changes by others in the same portions of the same files. The
>    conflicts could be in changes you have already committed locally, or
>    in uncommitted changes.
>
> The second sentence refers to uncommitted changes.  Is it really
> important to tell that in this case Git will not even start a merge?
> How will that help the reader/user when they are in this situation?

Agreed.  One nitpick still:

  Now you have conflicts due to local committed changes, described below.

I would say

  Now you may have conflicts due to local committed changes, described below.

instead.

>> Are we really 100% sure that 'git add' gets executed with all reasonable
>> user customizations?
>
> As long as they didn't remove the Git back-end from the list, yes.

It wasn't entirely clear for me but I take your word for it.

Thanks again for taking care of this, martin