Re: [PATCH] user-manual.txt: fix a few mistakes

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:36:40PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:19:39PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com>
> >> ---
> >>  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."

That sounds sensible to me, sure.

> 
> 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.

OK, sure.  Thanks for the thoughtful editing!

--b.