Re: [PATCH] RelNotes: Spelling & grammar fixes.

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

Mostly just tweaks, although I did change the "foo^{tag}" description a lot.

Thanks.  It is surprising that one can make so many typoes in a
single document ;-)

Hmph, is this a grammo?

Much easier to read.  Thanks.

  * "git branch -v -v" (and "git status") did not distinguish among a
-   branch that does not build on any other branch, a branch that is in
-   sync with the branch it builds on, and a branch that is configured
-   to build on some other branch that no longer exists.
+   branch that is not tracking any other branch, a branch that is in
+   sync with the branch it is tracking, and a branch that is tracking
+   some other branch that no longer exists.

People use the verb "track" to mean too many different things, and
the original deliberately tried to avoid use of that word.

Specifically, we try to limit the use of "track" to mean "to keep a
copy of what we observed from the remote" as in "remote-tracking
branch remotes/origin/master is used to track the 'master' branch at
your 'origin'", which is very different from "your 'master' branch
builds on your upstream's 'master'".

So I dunno about this part of the change.

On 13-11-18 01:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Mostly just tweaks, although I did change the "foo^{tag}" description a lot.

Thanks.  It is surprising that one can make so many typoes in a
single document ;-)

quoted

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Foreign interfaces, subsystems and ports.
 
  * "git-svn" used with SVN 1.8.0 when talking over https:// connection
    dumped core due to a bug in the serf library that SVN uses.  Work
-   it around on our side, even though the SVN side is being fixed.
+   around it on our side, even though the SVN side is being fixed.

Hmph, is this a grammo?

I like to call it a "wordo".  :)

quoted

@@ -126,56 +126,58 @@ UI, Workflows & Features
    "git status --porcelain" instead, as its format is stable and easier
    to parse.
 
- * Make "foo^{tag}" to peel a tag to itself, i.e. no-op., and fail if
-   "foo" is not a tag.  "git rev-parse --verify v1.0^{tag}" would be
-   a more convenient way to say "test $(git cat-file -t v1.0) = tag".
+ * The ref syntax "foo^{tag}" (with the literal string "{tag}") peels a
+   tag ref to itself, i.e. it's a no-op., and fails if
+   "foo" is not a tag.  "git rev-parse --verify v1.0^{tag}" is
+   a more convenient way than "test $(git cat-file -t v1.0) = tag" to
+   check if v1.0 is a tag.

Much easier to read.  Thanks.

quoted

  * "git branch -v -v" (and "git status") did not distinguish among a
-   branch that does not build on any other branch, a branch that is in
-   sync with the branch it builds on, and a branch that is configured
-   to build on some other branch that no longer exists.
+   branch that is not tracking any other branch, a branch that is in
+   sync with the branch it is tracking, and a branch that is tracking
+   some other branch that no longer exists.

People use the verb "track" to mean too many different things, and
the original deliberately tried to avoid use of that word.

Specifically, we try to limit the use of "track" to mean "to keep a
copy of what we observed from the remote" as in "remote-tracking
branch remotes/origin/master is used to track the 'master' branch at
your 'origin'", which is very different from "your 'master' branch
builds on your upstream's 'master'".

So I dunno about this part of the change.

I see.

My initial motivation for the change was that I thought "does not build on"
could too easily be read as "does not compile on".

The change is literally about how branch.<name>.merge configurations are
interpreted.  The git-config docs describe that item as "the upstream branch
for the given branch."  So maybe we can use "upstream" instead:

 * "git branch -v -v" (and "git status") did not distinguish among a
   branch that is not based on any upstream branch, a branch that is in
   sync with its upstream branch, and a branch that is configured with an
   upstream branch that no longer exists.

		M.

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

  * "git branch -v -v" (and "git status") did not distinguish among a
-   branch that does not build on any other branch, a branch that is in
-   sync with the branch it builds on, and a branch that is configured
-   to build on some other branch that no longer exists.
+   branch that is not tracking any other branch, a branch that is in
+   sync with the branch it is tracking, and a branch that is tracking
+   some other branch that no longer exists.

People use the verb "track" to mean too many different things, and
the original deliberately tried to avoid use of that word.

Specifically, we try to limit the use of "track" to mean "to keep a
copy of what we observed from the remote" as in "remote-tracking
branch remotes/origin/master is used to track the 'master' branch at
your 'origin'", which is very different from "your 'master' branch
builds on your upstream's 'master'".

How about something like the following, in the same spirit as --track
giving way to --set-upstream-to)?

	* "git branch -v -v" and "git status" did not distinguish among a
	  branch that does not have a corresponding upstream branch, a
	  branch that is in sync with its upstream, and a branch whose
	  upstream no longer exists.

Marc Branchaud wrote:

 * "git branch -v -v" (and "git status") did not distinguish among a
   branch that is not based on any upstream branch, a branch that is in
   sync with its upstream branch, and a branch that is configured with an
   upstream branch that no longer exists.

Ooh, this is much nicer than the wording I suggested.

Thank you.