Re: git branch documentation improvements

My minor quibble with start-point is that the naive user may assume
that, like CVS or SVN, git has some persistent notion of a "start
point".

In reality, git only tracks heads. A term like "head-commit" is, IMO,
more precise than "start-point" and does not potentially convey the
false notion that git knows or cares about the point at which a branch
was "started".

jon.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] wrote:

Am 5/7/2010 0:24, schrieb Andreas Hartmetz:

quoted

The most significant change is renaming <start-point> (or is it
<startpoint>...) to <branch-head> because even I as a relative beginner know
that a branch is defined by its (movable) head, and <start-point> *does*
actually specify the new branch head if I'm not mistaken.

But what is wrong with "start-point"? It precisely conveys the meaning of
the parameter.

-- Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html