On Friday 07 May 2010 00:59:22 Jon Seymour wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Andreas Hartmetz <ahartmetz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Today I read the git branch documentation and noticed a few things, > > mostly style and consistency related, that could easily be improved, so > > I did just that. > > Please consider merging the attached patch if it looks good, or tell me > > what you don't like about it. > > The most significant change is renaming <start-point> (or is it > > <startpoint>...) to <branch-head> because even I as a relative beginner > > know that a branch is defined by its (movable) head, and <start-point> > > *does* actually specify the new branch head if I'm not mistaken. > > While I agree with you start start-point is probably the wrong name > for this parameter, I wonder whether branch-head might be too > suggestive that the value of that parameter must itself be an existing > branch head. > > I think the term "head-commit" would be a more accurate way to > describe the possible values of this parameter. That is, it is the > commit that will become the head of the new branch. > Another suggestion I came up with much earlier that I recalled just now: <new-head> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html