Re: [PATCH] user-manual.txt: fix a few mistakes

"J. Bruce Fields" [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:19:39PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <redacted>
---
 Documentation/user-manual.txt |    8 ++++----
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index d99adc6..a169ef0 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt

@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ Bisecting: 3537 revisions left to test after this
 If you run "git branch" at this point, you'll see that git has
 temporarily moved you to a new branch named "bisect".  This branch
 points to a commit (with commit id 65934...) that is reachable from
-v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18.  Compile and test it, and see whether
+"master" but not from v2.6.18.  Compile and test it, and see whether
 it crashes.  Assume it does crash.  Then:
 
 -------------------------------------------------

@@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ If you make a commit that you later wish you hadn't, there are two
 fundamentally different ways to fix the problem:
 
 	1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done
-	by the previous commit.  This is the correct thing if your
+	by the old commit.  This is the correct thing if your
 	mistake has already been made public.
 
 	2. You can go back and modify the old commit.  You should

@@ -1567,8 +1567,8 @@ old history using, for example,
 $ git log master@{1}
 -------------------------------------------------
 
-This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head.
-This syntax can be used to with any git command that accepts a commit,

I actually prefer "head" here.  On something like:

		 A--B--C
		/
	o--o--o
		\
		 o--o--o


The term "branch" could be used to refer to the whole line of
development consisting of A, B, and C.  The term "head", on the other
hand, refers to either C or a ref that points to it.  We also use the
terms "branch head" or just "branch" for that case, but I think "head"
is more precise.

Then I'd suggest to be precise here, e.g.:

"This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the
"master" branch head."

The real reason for me to replacing "head" with "branch" in the first
place was that a few lines below there is example for HEAD, and I wanted
to make it more obvious that those is entirely different.

-- 
Sergei.