My minor quibble with start-point is that the naive user may assume that, like CVS or SVN, git has some persistent notion of a "start point". In reality, git only tracks heads. A term like "head-commit" is, IMO, more precise than "start-point" and does not potentially convey the false notion that git knows or cares about the point at which a branch was "started". jon. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 5/7/2010 0:24, schrieb Andreas Hartmetz: >> 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. > > But what is wrong with "start-point"? It precisely conveys the meaning of > the parameter. > > -- Hannes > -- > 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 > -- 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