Hi On 09/04/2020 01:08, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> In my latest attempt at documentation, I called these merges "diverters" >>>> yet still used "--include-diversions". Here are a few other words that we >>>> could use: >>>> >>>> * diverters or diversions >>>> * redirects >>>> * switches (think railroad switch). Synonym: exchange >>>> * detours >>> ...none of the above tells me that they are not no-op (in other >>> words, they do something meaningful), so I must be coming from >>> a direction different from you are. What redirects from what other >>> thing, for example? >> The merges do something meaningful: they "merge in" a "real" change. > Yes, but "redirect", "switch", "detour", or "divert" do not quite > mean "merging in a real change", at least to me. > >> I'll just submit my v2 as-is, which includes a significant change to >> the documentation that should make things more clear. > Thanks. Can I suggest "--side-merges" as a possible descriptor for these non-mainline diversions? My thesaurus had suggested detour and sidetracked, which led to the side-merge view. Philip
