Marc Branchaud <mbranchaud@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 13-05-01 06:31 AM, Thomas Adam wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 11:12, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
>>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
>>>> remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD', which leaves us with @{0}, but we
>>>> can't remove '{0}'?
>>>>
>>>> This patch allows '@' to be the same as 'HEAD'.
>>>>
>>>> So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
>>>>
>>>> Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so lets
>>>
>>> s/lets/let's/ (contraction of "let us")
>>
>> Ah, the contraction versus the first person singular. In this case
>> where the context is concluding in decision, rather than making a
>> statement ("Let's go to the shops", for example) then "lets" is the
>> correct word to use here.
>
> You've lost me. I think Eric is right. If "lets" is a verb in this
> sentence, what is its subject?
>
> Besides, of which verb & tense is "lets" the first person singular? Never
> have I "lets" anything in my life... :)
I'll queue with:
... '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea,
so make it invalid.
That is, just use the imperative mood to give an order to the
codebase to "make it so", which is a common style of log messages in
this project.
--
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