Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Nice, thanks! -- Sergey > > 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
