"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:19:39PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/user-manual.txt | 8 ++++----
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> index d99adc6..a169ef0 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ Bisecting: 3537 revisions left to test after this
>> If you run "git branch" at this point, you'll see that git has
>> temporarily moved you to a new branch named "bisect". This branch
>> points to a commit (with commit id 65934...) that is reachable from
>> -v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
>> +"master" but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
>> it crashes. Assume it does crash. Then:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ If you make a commit that you later wish you hadn't, there are two
>> fundamentally different ways to fix the problem:
>>
>> 1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done
>> - by the previous commit. This is the correct thing if your
>> + by the old commit. This is the correct thing if your
>> mistake has already been made public.
>>
>> 2. You can go back and modify the old commit. You should
>> @@ -1567,8 +1567,8 @@ old history using, for example,
>> $ git log master@{1}
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head.
>> -This syntax can be used to with any git command that accepts a commit,
>
> I actually prefer "head" here. On something like:
>
> A--B--C
> /
> o--o--o
> \
> o--o--o
>
>
> The term "branch" could be used to refer to the whole line of
> development consisting of A, B, and C. The term "head", on the other
> hand, refers to either C or a ref that points to it. We also use the
> terms "branch head" or just "branch" for that case, but I think "head"
> is more precise.
Then I'd suggest to be precise here, e.g.:
"This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the
"master" branch head."
The real reason for me to replacing "head" with "branch" in the first
place was that a few lines below there is example for HEAD, and I wanted
to make it more obvious that those is entirely different.
--
Sergei.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
