Thanks, Stefan. Yes, that’s nice and clear.

I see how it could be enticing to use a new term that might be more intuitive
for new users but recycling an existing command or concept probably keeps
it a bit simpler. Knowing what it does, ‘reintegrate’ makes sense perhaps
even ‘integrate’ could work.

It’s tempting to come up with something new like ‘fuse’, ‘insert’, ‘conform',
etc., but given the target/expected audience ‘reintegrate’ is familiar.

Thanks again.

> On 15 Oct 2019, at 8:16 pm, Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 07:53:15PM +1100, Mark Jamsek wrote:
>> I’m just catching up on this as I plan on using Got vice git but missed the
>> first part of this discussion regarding ‘reintegrate’
>> 
>> Have I got it right that it basically syncs the master branch with the
>> working branch? As in you checkout a new branch to, for example, add
>> a new feature or fix a bug and then want to sync the master with the changes?
> 
> Yes, that's precisely it.
> 
> This is how the man page trys to explain it. Does this make sense to you?
> 
>     reintegrate branch
>               Reintegrate the specified branch into the work tree's current
>               branch.  Files in the work tree are updated to match the
>               contents on the reintegrated branch, and the reference of the
>               work tree's branch is changed to point at the head commit of
>               the reintegrated branch.
> 
>               Both branches can be considered equivalent after reintegration
>               since they will be pointing at the same commit.  Both branches
>               remain available for future work, if desired.  In case the
>               reintegrated branch is no longer needed it may be deleted with
>               got branch -d.
> 
>> I apologise if I’m off the mark, I only caught the last couple messages
>> but am trying to get an understanding.
> 
> No worries.
>