Hi,
I'm getting in on the fun by adding a little nit-picking of my own. :-)
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:46 AM René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 20.12.23 um 08:05 schrieb Michael Lohmann:
>
> Thank you for this patch and sorry for the nitpicking below!
>
> > 437591a9d738 changed the synopsys from two separate lines for `--abort`
>
> "Synopsys" is a software company. A "synopsis" is a brief outline.
>
> > and `--continue` to a single line (and it also simultaneously added
> > `--quit`). That way the "enumeration" of the syntax for `--continue` is
> > no longer valid. Since `--quit` is now also part of the same syntax
> > line, a general statement cannot be made any more. Instead of trying to
> > enumerate the synopsys, be explicit in the limitations of when
> > respective actions are valid.
>
> Had to think a moment before I understood that "enumeration" refers to
> "The second syntax" and "The third syntax", which have been combined
> into this line:
>
> git merge (--continue | --abort | --quit)
>
> And it does make sense that we can no longer say "second syntax" and
> only refer to "git merge --abort", or "third syntax" and mean "git
> merge --continue". In other words: References by number are no longer
> valid after a merge of some of the synopses.
Thanks for explaining; I also missed that in reading over the original
patch. It'd be great if Michael could update the commit message to
make this a bit more clear.
> > This change also groups `--abort` and `--continue` together when
> > explaining the circumstances under which they can be run in order to
> > avoid duplication.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Lohmann <mi.al.lohmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Documentation/git-merge.txt | 19 +++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > index e8ab340319..d8863cc943 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > @@ -46,21 +46,20 @@ a log message from the user describing the changes. Before the operation,
> > D---E---F---G---H master
> > ------------
> >
> > -The second syntax ("`git merge --abort`") can only be run after the
> > -merge has resulted in conflicts. 'git merge --abort' will abort the
> > -merge process and try to reconstruct the pre-merge state. However,
> > -if there were uncommitted changes when the merge started (and
> > -especially if those changes were further modified after the merge
> > -was started), 'git merge --abort' will in some cases be unable to
> > -reconstruct the original (pre-merge) changes. Therefore:
> > +It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being
> > +completely automatic. "`git merge --continue`" and "`git merge --abort`"
> ^^^^^^^^^
> automatically
Do you perhaps mean "completed automatically" (i.e. change both of the
last two words in that sentence, and not just the last one)? That
would make sense to me, and I like that wording a little better. But
I think either you need to change both of the last two words of that
sentence (my preference), or neither of them.
> > +can only be run after the merge has resulted in conflicts.
>
> The connection between these two sentences feels weak to me.
This sentence is a bit more problematic than that: Even when there are
no conflicts, "git merge --no-commit" will also stop a merge, and one
can then use either --abort or --continue. So the assertion made by
this sentence that you're reviewing is not accurate.
> Perhaps something like this:
>
> A merge stops if there's a conflict that cannot be resolved
> automatically. At that point you can run `git merge --abort` or
> `git merge --continue`.
I like this alternative wording; it avoids the incorrect assertion and
uses something equivalent to the "completed automatically" suggested
above.
