On 24/06/2021 20:05, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 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. You appear to be arguing that your "explain what is a fast-forward" (subject line of the patch) doesn't need, within the patch, to explain that it is about the term "fast-forward", being used in a Git specific way... > >> 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 > P.
