| Message ID | pull.957.git.1621406381404.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | docs: typo in glossary content | expand |
"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > @@ -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.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > "Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt >> index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt >> @@ -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 > > 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 ...
diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644 --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt @@ -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>>.