git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content
@ 2021-05-19  6:39 Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
  2021-05-19  7:38 ` Junio C Hamano
  2021-05-19  9:28 ` [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward " Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget @ 2021-05-19  6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Reuven Y., Reuven Y

From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>

his->this
The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person

Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
---
    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(-)

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>>.

base-commit: bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e
-- 
gitgitgadget

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content
  2021-05-19  6:39 [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
@ 2021-05-19  7:38 ` Junio C Hamano
  2021-05-19  8:36   ` Junio C Hamano
  2021-05-19  9:28 ` [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward " Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-05-19  7:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Reuven Y.

"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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content
  2021-05-19  7:38 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2021-05-19  8:36   ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-05-19  8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Reuven Y.

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
    ...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
  2021-05-19  6:39 [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
  2021-05-19  7:38 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2021-05-19  9:28 ` Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
  2021-05-19 12:10   ` Junio C Hamano
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget @ 2021-05-19  9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Reuven Y., Reuven Y

From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>

The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour,
improved through a discussion with @Junio

Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
---
    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 <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
      
       ## 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
      
          Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
      
     @@ 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(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
index 67c7a50b96a0..a22cef39fab0 100644
--- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
+++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
@@ -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
-- 
gitgitgadget

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
  2021-05-19  9:28 ` [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward " Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
@ 2021-05-19 12:10   ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-05-19 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Reuven Y.

"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
>
> The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour,
> improved through a discussion with @Junio
>

Sorry but I am not @Junio.

> -	<<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.

>  	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>  	<<def_repository,repository>>.
>  
>
> base-commit: bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-05-19 12:10 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-05-19  6:39 [PATCH] docs: typo in glossary content Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
2021-05-19  7:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-19  8:36   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-19  9:28 ` [PATCH v2] docs: improve fast-forward " Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget
2021-05-19 12:10   ` Junio C Hamano

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).