Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
Let's see ... gitster goes and looks for what he suggested ...
So, I dunno. I'd say just settling on the simplest "is a line of
development" would be the easiest path for now.
I've queued the following.
Thanks for pinging a stalled thread.
--- >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ---
From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 23:05:51 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] glossary: improve "branch" definition
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>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Notes (amlog):
Message-Id: <87blfnhm8w.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 090c888335..67c7a50b96 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 line of development. The most recent
<<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
--
2.29.2-577-g9ac7fd3f3f
