Re: [PATCH 03/10] Change remote tracking to remote-tracking in non-trivial places

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

--- a/Documentation/everyday.txt
+++ b/Documentation/everyday.txt

@@ -180,12 +180,12 @@ directory; clone from it to start a repository on the satellite
 machine.
 <2> clone sets these configuration variables by default.
 It arranges `git pull` to fetch and store the branches of mothership
-machine to local `remotes/origin/*` tracking branches.
+machine to local `remotes/origin/*` remote-tracking branches.
 <3> arrange `git push` to push local `master` branch to
 `remotes/satellite/master` branch of the mothership machine.
 <4> push will stash our work away on `remotes/satellite/master`
-tracking branch on the mothership machine.  You could use this as
-a back-up method.
+remote-tracking branch on the mothership machine.  You could use this
+as a back-up method.
 <5> on mothership machine, merge the work done on the satellite
 machine into the master branch.

Just for the record: I still don't think this hunk fits with the rest
of the patch, and I think it just switches from one bad wording to
another.

This is the "Everyday git" document, one of the first pages a new user
might read.  Using jargon that does not explain itself (whether it is
"tracking branches" or "remote-tracking branches") is not really a
good idea.

Wouldn't it be possible to split this into a separate patch, so it
does not hold back the other "add hyphen" changes?

I don't get the point. If you like neither "tracking branch" nor
"remote-tracking branch", then my patch doesn't make the situation
worse anyway, so it should not hold back anything. It doesn't prevent
better wording of this document later, but this is not the point of my
patch serie.

What I'm trying to do here is really to achieve consistancy. If
something has a name, let's use the same name everywhere. I'd be
really frustrated if some instances of any name other than
"remote-tracking branch" remain purposedly after my patch serie to
designate what we seem to agree should be called "remote-tracking
branch".

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Matthieu Moy wrote:

What I'm trying to do here is really to achieve consistancy. If
something has a name, let's use the same name everywhere.

Okay, but can it at least not be part of a patch that does something
simpler (only adding dashes)?

I'm not sure why you don't like the idea of rewording it, but
that's fine --- I am just trying to make sure that the patches
make sense...