Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes: > It seems like you posted from the news interface at gmane, and the > annoying are gone now. The patch is still linewrapped (see the > hunk header starting with "@@ -187,26"), but this one I can fix up and > actually take a look . So is the one starting with "@@ -215,21 +217,65". Sorry, I failed once again. It's not cc'ed, either. I'm thinking maybe Scott Chacon also has comments, since he seems to have written the file I'm modifying? > As it is documented for the first time, we didn't have a formal > terminology for calling these commits and it is this document's > responsibility to come up with a good one. We have used "shallow clone" > and "shallow history", and I agree with the use of adjective in these > contexts, but I am not sure if it is a good idea to call the commits at > the boundary of a shallow history "shallow"---the following sentences do > not parse well at least for me: > > "This commit is shallow." > "This commit is not shallow, and it is a direct child of that commit, > which is shallow." > "That commit does not exist in this repository because it is an > ancestor of a shallow commit". > > But it may be just me. Better wording ideas, anybody? Yes, I see... I just transplanted the terminology that the protocol uses. When "shallow SHA" is written, it means something is at the history boundary. Then again, when "deepen d" is written, it specifies a depth and not an amount to increase depth by, so maybe the strings the protocol uses are just bad for human comprehension. -- 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