docs: typo in glossary content
PATCH 1/1 docs: typo in glossary content
From: Reuven Y <[email protected]>
his->this
The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person
---
typo in glossary content
his->this The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-957%2Frobi-y%2Fmaster-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/957
Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +1 -1
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no <<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another <<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> - <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this revision. This will happen frequently on a <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.
base-commit: bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e
Signature · 1 line
gitgitgadget
Documentation/glossary-content.txt current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no · line 152
Quoted 13 lines · Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +1
-1@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no <<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another <<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> - <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this revision. This will happen frequently on a <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.
Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at 9290cd58 (Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).
The "fast-forward" situation it describes happens when you try to merge somebody else's history into your history, and if you do not have anything of your own since the history of the other party forked from your history. In such a situation, instead of creating a merge commit whose parents are the tip of your history and the tip of the history of the other party, you just update the pointer that points at the tip of your history (i.e. HEAD) to point at the commit at the tip of the history of the other party.
One would refer to that commit, as "the tip of _HIS_ history", if one does not bother trying to be gender neutral by repeatedly saying "the other party". So, "his" you touched is correct. The description that leads to this part talks about two "revisions" (i.e. the one you have, and the other one you are merging), and rewriting it to "this" revision makes it unclear which one is meant.
I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party", especially since that would help reduce confusion. How about phrasing
In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to point at the same revision as the other party's. This will happen often ...
perhaps?
Thanks.
Quoted 23 lines · Junio C Hamano
Documentation/glossary-content.txt current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no · line 152
Quoted 13 lines · Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +1
-1@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no <<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another <<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> - <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this revision. This will happen frequently on a <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at
9290cd58(Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).
...
I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party", especially since that would help reduce confusion. How about phrasing
Quoted 6 lines
In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to point at the same revision as the other party's. This will happen often ...
perhaps?
Alternatively, since we start with "you are 'merging' another branch's changes", we could say
... but instead just update your branch to point at the same revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen often
...
PATCH v2 1/1 docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
In reply to Reuven Y. via GitGitGadgetFrom: Reuven Y <[email protected]>
The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour, improved through a discussion with @Junio
---
typo in glossary content
his->this The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-957%2Frobi-y%2Fmaster-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/957
Range-diff vs v1:
1: c063a7f9abfd ! 1: 66a3f7e642b6 docs: typo in glossary content
@@ Metadata
Author: Reuven Y <[email protected]>
## Commit message ##
- docs: typo in glossary content
+ docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
- his->this
- The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person
+ The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour,
+ improved through a discussion with @Junio
@@ Documentation/glossary-content.txt: current branch integrates with) obviously do
<<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
- <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
-+ <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this
- revision. This will happen frequently on a
+- revision. This will happen frequently on a
++ <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update your branch to point at the same
++ revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen frequently on a
<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.
+
Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +2 -2
@@ -146,8 +146,8 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no <<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another <<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> - <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his - revision. This will happen frequently on a + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update your branch to point at the same + revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen frequently on a <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.
base-commit: bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e
Signature · 1 line
gitgitgadget
Re: [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
Quoted 5 lines · Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
From: Reuven Y <[email protected]>
The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour, improved through a discussion with @Junio
Sorry but I am not @Junio.
Documentation/glossary-content.txt current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no · line 150
Quoted 4 lines
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +2
-2- <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his - revision. This will happen frequently on a + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update your branch to point at the same + revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen frequently on a
Hmph, I sense a broken indentation.
I'll fix it up, so no need for resending only to fix this.
Thanks.
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/glossary-content.txt +0
-0<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote <<def_repository,repository>>.base-commit:
bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e