Re: [PATCH 2/2] config/remote.txt: improve wording for 'remote.<name>.followRemoteHEAD'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri Feb 14, 2025 at 18:36, Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/config/remote.txt | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/remote.txt b/Documentation/config/remote.txt
> index 1b9814e8aa4..25fe219d103 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/remote.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config/remote.txt
> @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ the values inherited from a lower priority configuration files (e.g.
>  remote.<name>.followRemoteHEAD::
>  	How linkgit:git-fetch[1] should handle updates to `remotes/<name>/HEAD`.
>  	The default value is "create", which will create `remotes/<name>/HEAD`
> -	if it exists on the remote, but not locally, but will not touch an
> -	already existing local reference. Setting to "warn" will print
> -	a message if the remote has a different value, than the local one and
> +	if it exists on the remote, but not locally; this will not touch an
> +	already existing local reference. Setting it to "warn" will print
> +	a message if the remote has a different value than the local one;
>  	in case there is no local reference, it behaves like "create".
>  	A variant on "warn" is "warn-if-not-$branch", which behaves like
>  	"warn", but if `HEAD` on the remote is `$branch` it will be silent.
> -	Setting to "always" will silently update it to the value on the remote.
> -	Finally, setting it to "never" will never change or create the local
> -	reference.
> +	Setting it to "always" will silently update `remotes/<name>/HEAD` to
> +	the value on the remote.  Finally, setting it to "never" will never
> +	change or create the local reference.

I'm personally not a huge fan of semicolons, but I do agree that the text does
not flow particularly well. Wouldn't it actually make sense to format this as
a list, with an entry for each option? The would probably also help in quickly
parsing how many options there are.






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux