Philip Oakley wrote: > Hi Felipe, > On 24/06/2021 15:31, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Philip Oakley wrote: > >> On 21/06/2021 18:52, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >>> --- a/Documentation/git-pull.txt > >>> +++ b/Documentation/git-pull.txt > >>> @@ -41,16 +41,41 @@ Assume the following history exists and the current branch is > >>> ------------ > >>> A---B---C master on origin > >>> / > >>> - D---E---F---G master > >>> + D---E master > >>> ^ > >>> origin/master in your repository > >>> ------------ > >>> > >>> Then "`git pull`" will fetch and replay the changes from the remote > >>> `master` branch since it diverged from the local `master` (i.e., `E`) > >>> -until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master` and record the > >>> -result in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits > >>> -and a log message from the user describing the changes. > >>> +until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master`. > >>> + > >>> +After the remote changes have been synchronized, the local `master` will > >>> +be fast-forwarded to the same commit as the remote one, therefore > >> Perhaps s/be fast-forwarded/have been 'fast-forward'ed/ ? > > No, there's multiple steps: > My key point was to 'quote' the fast-forward term. fast-forward is an English word [1], there's no need to quote it as if it weren't. > And then (if suitable, with appropriate grammar corrections) indicate > subtly that 'nothing actually moved', we just moved the post-it note > showing the branch-name on the DAG [hence the confusion about timing] ;-) A branch is a "post-it note", moving the post-it note is the same thing as moving the branch. Both the "origin/master" branch, and the "master" branch moved. So I don't know how exactly "nothing actually moved". Perhaps you meant no commit was created, and therefore the DAG didn't change. Maybe instead of saying "creating a linear history", "representing a linear history"? [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fast-forward -- Felipe Contreras
