Hi All, What is the procedure to update the document to correct the error? As I responded yesterday, see below. we need to change the error. From: Minnie Shi <minnie.shi@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, May 20, 2023 at 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: merge: fix mention of `ORIG_HEAD` To: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Okay, i read one more time, i think it should be read as Before the operation, -`ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the "current" branch (`G`) instead of Before the operation, -`ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the "current" branch (`C`) Kind regards, Mi On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 2:23 PM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Minnie Shi <minnie.shi@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> in summary the sentence should be read as > >> > >> Before the operation, ORIG_HEAD is set to the tip of the current branch (H). > >> instead of > >> Before the operation, ORIG_HEAD is set to the tip of the current branch (C). > > > > Not C but G (i.e. the tip _before_ the history is updated). > > > > I notice that we overuse "current" there. One is to refer to the > > most recent commit on a branch, the other is to refer to the branch > > that is checked out. For the former, we say "the tip" in the other > > sentence, and it probably will make it less ambiguous if used that > > phrase. > > > > Then "`git merge topic`" will replay the changes made on the > > `topic` branch since it diverged from `master` (i.e., `E`) until > > the commit at the tip of the `topic` (`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. Before the operation, > > `ORIG_HEAD` is set to the tip of the current branch (`G`). > > > > My reading also hiccupped with "replay"; the first sentence to > > explain the command says "incorporate the changes", and that may be > > a less confusing expression; "replay" somehow makes me imagine that > > the changes are cherry-picked one by one---it may be only me, so I > > left it as-is in the suggestion above. > > For me "apply changes" or even "apply cumulative changes" works much > better than "replay changes" in this context, especially provided we > will apparently have "git replay" soon. > > Thanks, > -- Sergey Organov -- Kind regards Min
