Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The old phrasing is at least questionable, if not wrong, as there are > a lot of branches out there that didn't see active development for > years, yet they are still branches, ready to become active again any > time. > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > index 090c888335d3..8bf198e72771 100644 > --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > Untyped <<def_object,object>>, e.g. the contents of a file. > > [[def_branch]]branch:: > - A "branch" is an active line of development. The most recent > + A "branch" is a separate line of development. The most recent A dormant branch cannot be an "active" line of development, so in that sense, the original is wrong. The description is better without the adjective "active". But do we need to say "a separate line of development", instead of just "a line of development"? What is "a line of development" that is not separate? What extra pieces of information are we trying to convey by having the word "separate" there? > <<def_commit,commit>> on a branch is referred to as the tip of > that branch. The tip of the branch is referenced by a branch > <<def_head,head>>, which moves forward as additional development
