El 25/3/2009, a las 19:33, Junio C Hamano escribió:
Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
If you tried a merge which resulted in a complex conflicts and
-would want to start over, you can recover with 'git-reset'.
+want to start over, you can recover with 'git-reset'.
Reads Ok to me either way...
"tried" is in the past preterit, so the second verb, the one after the
"and", should be "want" due to concordance. "would want" is not
actually wrong, but it is bad form. It is a common mistake among non-
native speaker to use "would" when it's not required in cases like
this, probably due to confusion with the pattern "If X, I would
Y" (but note that there's no "and" in that case).
(Speaking as a native English-speaker and part-time English teacher,
who this very week has been teaching classes about modal verbs like
"would".)
diff --git a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt b/Documentation/
merge-strategies.txt
index 1276f85..ee7f754 100644
--- a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt
+++ b/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt
@@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ MERGE STRATEGIES
resolve::
This can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch
- and another branch you pulled from) using 3-way merge
+ and another branch you pulled from) using a 3-way merge
algorithm. It tries to carefully detect criss-cross
Hmph, would that be an 'a' or 'the'?
Doesn't really matter, IMO, but some kind of article is required
there. If there is literally only one 3-way merge algorithm in
computer science, then "the" would be best. I chose "a" because I was
thinking of it as "Git's interpretation of the 3-way merge algorithm".
recursive::
- This can only resolve two heads using 3-way merge
- algorithm. When there are more than one common
- ancestors that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a
+ This can only resolve two heads using a 3-way merge
+ algorithm. When there is more than one common
+ ancestor that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a
Do you need an article before the latter "3-way merge", perhaps "the"?
Probably wouldn't hurt.
@@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ recursive::
pulling or merging one branch.
octopus::
- This resolves more than two-head case, but refuses to do
- complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is
+ This resolves the more than two-heads case, but refuses to do
+ a complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is
Perhaps "resolves cases with more than two heads" is easier to read?
Yes, I agree.
Cheers,
Wincent
--
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
