Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no
>> <<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another
>> <<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what
>> you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
>> - <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
>> + <<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this
>> revision. This will happen frequently on a
>> <<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>> <<def_repository,repository>>.
>
> Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at
> 9290cd58 (Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).
> ...
> I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party",
> especially since that would help reduce confusion. How about
> phrasing
>
> In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
> <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to
> point at the same revision as the other party's. This will
> happen often ...
>
> perhaps?
Alternatively, since we start with "you are 'merging' another
branch's changes", we could say
... but instead just update your branch to point at the same
revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen often
...
