sorganov@xxxxxxxxx writes: > From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> > > Old description not only raised the question of why the tool is called > git-merge rather than git-join, but "join histories" also sounds like > very simple operation, something like what "git-merge -s ours" does. > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/git-merge.txt | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt > index 216d2f4..cc0329d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt > @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ git-merge(1) > > NAME > ---- > -git-merge - Join two or more development histories together > + > +git-merge - Merge one or more branches to the current branch This patch, evaluated by itself, looks like a regression in that it tries to explain "merge" by using verb "merge", making it fuzzier to those who do not yet know what a "merge" is. That was why it tried to explain "merge" as an operation to join histories. However, the next one, 5/6, resurrects the "join history" in the description part to help them, so the damage is not so severe when we take them together. I haven't formed firm opinion on this patch yet.