Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] glossary: mention 'treeish' as an alternative to 'tree-ish'
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:37
Richard Hansen [off-list ref] writes:
The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, so include both in the glossary so that a search for either will lead to the definition. Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen <redacted> ---
I hate to say this after seeing you doing a thorough job in this series, but because "tree-ish" and "commit-ish" are both made-up words, I have a feeling that we are better off unifying to the dashed form, which unfortunately is the other way around from what your series does. Patches 5, 6 and 7 are good clarifications.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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 dba5062..0273095 100644 --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ should not be combined with other pathspec. with refs to the associated blob and/or tree objects. A <<def_tree,tree>> is equivalent to a <<def_directory,directory>>. -[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish:: +[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish (also treeish):: A <<def_ref,ref>> pointing to either a <<def_commit_object,commit object>>, a <<def_tree_object,tree object>>, or a <<def_tag_object,tag object>> pointing to a tag or commit or tree object.