Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] revisions.txt: language improvements

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.04.2011 00:05:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>  Documentation/revisions.txt |   68 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>  1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> index 92bc662..25125c3 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> @@ -2,20 +2,20 @@ SPECIFYING REVISIONS
>>  --------------------
>>  
>>  A revision parameter '<rev>' typically, but not necessarily, names a
>> -commit object.  They use what is called an 'extended SHA1'
>> +commit object.  It uses what is called an 'extended SHA1'
>>  syntax.  Here are various ways to spell object names.  The
>> -ones listed near the end of this list are to name trees and
>> +ones listed near the end of this list name trees and
>>  blobs contained in a commit.
>>  
>>  '<sha1>', e.g. 'dae86e1950b1277e545cee180551750029cfe735', 'dae86e'::
>>    The full SHA1 object name (40-byte hexadecimal string), or
>> -  a substring of such that is unique within the repository.
>> +  a substring that is unique within the repository.
> 
> Do we need to rephrase this a bit more, so that it would be clear that
> "e86e1950b" is not an abbreviated object name, even though it is a
> substring and may be unique within the repository?
> 
> Perhaps "a prefix of such a full SHA-1 object name that is unique..."?

Yes, definitely, I missed that.

> 
>> @@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ the '$GIT_DIR/refs' directory or from the '$GIT_DIR/packed-refs' file.
>>  
>>  '@\{<n>\}', e.g. '@\{1\}'::
>>    You can use the '@' construct with an empty ref part to get at a
>> +  reflog of the current branch. For example, if you are on
>> +  branch 'blabla' then '@\{1\}' means the same as 'blabla@\{1\}'.
> 
> Is that "a reflog of the current branch", or because there is only one
> reflog, should it be "the reflog of the current branch"?  Ah, we mean one
> entry in the reflog (an entry of the reflog of the current branch), so
> this probably is Ok.

"reflog entry of the..." would be clearer, yes.

> 
>> @@ -133,8 +133,8 @@ the '$GIT_DIR/refs' directory or from the '$GIT_DIR/packed-refs' file.
>>    a commit whose commit message matches the specified regular expression.
>>    This name returns the youngest matching commit which is
>>    reachable from any ref.  If the commit message starts with a
>> +  '!' you have to repeat that;  the special sequence ':/!',
>> +  followed by something else than '!', is reserved for now.
> 
> Hmm, shouldn't it be "something OTHER than" instead?

I think both are correct, "else" is maybe slightly more
American/colloquial in this context. I'd be happy with both.

> 
> Grammar is hard; thanks for cleaning them up.
> 

I too :)