Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt >> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ to point at the new commit. >> you have. In such these cases, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>> >> <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his >> revision. This will happen frequently on a >> - <<def_tracking_branch,tracking branch>> of a remote >> + <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote >> <<def_repository,repository>>. > > Why not keep the anchor name, like so: > > <<def_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> > > (for brevity and to keep old links valid)? (sorry, I had overlooked this message) We could do that, but I don't think there are many links to the anchor from outside (http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fsoftware%2Fscm%2Fgit%2Fdocs%2Fgitglossary.html suggests there are none, but it seems to have missed at least the one in git(1)), and links would still point to the right page, if not to the right anchor. Your proposal would break the regularity of anchor names, which I think is more important than brievety. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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