From: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristoffer.haugsbakk@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 3:51 PM
By adding the word "just", which might have been accidentally omitted.
Adding the word "just" makes it clear that the point is to *not* do an
octopus merge simply because you *can* do it. In other words, you
should have a reason for doing it beyond simply having two (seemingly)
independent commits that you need to merge into another branch, since
it's not always the best approach.
The previous sentence made it look more like it was trying to say that
you shouldn't do an octopus merge *because* you can do an octopus merge.
Although this interpretation doesn't make sense and the rest of the
paragraph makes the intended meaning clear, this adjustment should make
the intent of the sentence more immediately clear to the reader.
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristoffer.haugsbakk@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt
b/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt
index 72ed90ca3..72ca9c1ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt
@@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ $ git show-branch
++* [master~2] Pretty-print messages.
------------
-Note that you should not do Octopus because you can. An octopus
+Note that you should not do Octopus just because you can. An octopus
is a valid thing to do and often makes it easier to view the
commit history if you are merging more than two independent
changes at the same time. However, if you have merge conflicts
--
2.11.0
Looks like a reasonable emphasis to me
--
Philip (UK)