Re: [PATCH] Documentation: suggest "reset --keep" to undo a commit

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Please tell a story where keep makes more sense than hard by enhancing the
explanatory text <1> associated with this section.  The current text says
that the three topmost commit representing what you have recently worked
so far are all unwanted, strongly hinting that hard is more appropriate
thing to do than keep, which is not what we want if we are changing the
example to use keep.

Maybe the best story would be "you have just explored a blind alley
and decided the last three commits are not a good idea at all", with

That unfortunately does not seem to describe the nature of the local
changes at all, which I think is the whole point of this topic to
encourage use of --keep over --hard.

quoted

It would be sufficient to just hint that the uncommitted changes that you
have in your working tree are unrelated to what these three commits wanted
to do (e.g. you always keep small changes around, such as debugging
printf's

That use case is less interesting to me --- it is relatively harmless
to clobber such content.

Actually I think that is the primary use case of the feature, as --keep
was done as a parallel to the behaviour of checkout that checks out a
different branch while keeping local changes.