Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> 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? >> >> I think it tries to convey a notion that 2 branches represent separate >> lines of development. I.e., that the whole purpose of branching is to >> provide support for independent, or parallel, or /separate/ lines of >> development. > > So in the context of talking about a branch, there is no need to say > "a separate line". It only starts making sense to use the word > "separate" whey you say "this is a line of development. By the way, > there is another line of development that is separate from the first > one". [...] > In the mental model of Git about branches, I think the only one > thing people can agree on is that a branch points at a commit, and > checking it out and making a commit on top of it will change that > branch to point at the newly created commit. And this view supports > the word "separate"---whether you have two branches pointing at the > same commit or a different one, building a new commit on and > advancing the tip of one branch does not affect the other branch. So, what do we finally do? Just remove "active", or replace it with "separate"? It's fine with me either way. Will you just fix it yourself, or should I re-roll if "separate" is not accepted? -- Sergey
