Re: [PATCH v2] Document the underlying protocol used by shallow repositories and --depth commands.

Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:

It seems like you posted from the news interface at gmane, and the
annoying   are gone now.  The patch is still linewrapped (see the
hunk header starting with "@@ -187,26"), but this one I can fix up and
actually take a look .

So is the one starting with "@@ -215,21 +217,65". Sorry, I failed once again.
It's not cc'ed, either. I'm thinking maybe Scott Chacon also has comments, since
he seems to have written the file I'm modifying?

As it is documented for the first time, we didn't have a formal
terminology for calling these commits and it is this document's
responsibility to come up with a good one. We have used "shallow clone"
and "shallow history", and I agree with the use of adjective in these
contexts, but I am not sure if it is a good idea to call the commits at
the boundary of a shallow history "shallow"---the following sentences do
not parse well at least for me:

    "This commit is shallow."
    "This commit is not shallow, and it is a direct child of that commit,
    which is shallow."
    "That commit does not exist in this repository because it is an
    ancestor of a shallow commit".

But it may be just me. Better wording ideas, anybody?

Yes, I see... I just transplanted the terminology that the protocol uses. When
"shallow SHA" is written, it means something is at the history boundary. Then
again, when "deepen d" is written, it specifies a depth and not an amount to
increase depth by, so maybe the strings the protocol uses are just bad for human
comprehension.