Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
My thought was that "merge", the operation, is so well-known term that
it could well go into the NAME section without explanation.
Besides:
$ man merge
NAME
merge - three-way file merge
[...]
Uses the same pattern.
>
> 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.
Damage? In SCM world we can track the issue back to:
$ man -k rcsmerge
rcsmerge (1) - merge RCS revisions
-- Sergey