Hi All,

What is the procedure to update the document to correct the error? As
I responded yesterday, see below. we need to change the error.

From: Minnie Shi <redacted>
Date: Sat, May 20, 2023 at 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: merge: fix mention of `ORIG_HEAD`
To: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>, Kristoffer Haugsbakk <redacted>


Okay, i read one more time, i think it should be read as

Before the operation,
-`ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the "current" branch (`G`)

instead of
Before the operation,
-`ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the "current" branch (`C`)

Kind regards,
Mi

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 2:23 PM Sergey Organov [off-list ref] wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Minnie Shi [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

in summary the sentence should be read as

Before the operation, ORIG_HEAD is set to the tip of the current branch (H).
instead of
Before the operation, ORIG_HEAD is set to the tip of the current branch (C).

Not C but G (i.e. the tip _before_ the history is updated).

I notice that we overuse "current" there.  One is to refer to the
most recent commit on a branch, the other is to refer to the branch
that is checked out.  For the former, we say "the tip" in the other
sentence, and it probably will make it less ambiguous if used that
phrase.

    Then "`git merge topic`" will replay the changes made on the
    `topic` branch since it diverged from `master` (i.e., `E`) until
    the commit at the tip of the `topic` (`C`) on top of `master`,
    and record the result
    in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits and
    a log message from the user describing the changes. Before the operation,
    `ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the current branch (`G`).

My reading also hiccupped with "replay"; the first sentence to
explain the command says "incorporate the changes", and that may be
a less confusing expression; "replay" somehow makes me imagine that
the changes are cherry-picked one by one---it may be only me, so I
left it as-is in the suggestion above.

For me "apply changes" or even "apply cumulative changes" works much
better than "replay changes" in this context, especially provided we
will apparently have "git replay" soon.

Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov

-- 
Kind regards
Min