Re: [PATCH 2/5] fetch doc: update note on '+' in front of the refspec

[Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>]

On 14-05-29 06:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While it is not *wrong* per-se to say that pulling a rewound/rebased
> branch will lead to an unnecessary merge conflict, that is not what
> the leading "+" sign to allow non-fast-forward update of remote-tracking
> branch is at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> index 18cffc2..2a7e2b7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> @@ -24,15 +24,15 @@ is updated even if it does not result in a fast-forward
>  update.
>  +
>  [NOTE]
> -If the remote branch from which you want to pull is
> -modified in non-linear ways such as being rewound and
> -rebased frequently, then a pull will attempt a merge with
> -an older version of itself, likely conflict, and fail.
> -It is under these conditions that you would want to use
> -the `+` sign to indicate non-fast-forward updates will
> -be needed.  There is currently no easy way to determine
> -or declare that a branch will be made available in a
> -repository with this behavior; the pulling user simply
> +When the remote branch you want to fetch is known to
> +be rewound and rebased regularly, it is expected that
> +the tip of it will not be descendant of the commit that
> +used to be at its tip the last time you fetched it and
> +stored in your remote-tracking branch.  You would want

I think the second part of that last sentence might be clearer as

	it is expected that its new tip will not be a descendant of
	its previous tip (as stored in your remote-tracking branch
	the last time you fetched).

Then start the next sentence with

	In this case, you would want ....


		M.

> +to use the `+` sign to indicate non-fast-forward updates
> +will be needed for such branches.  There is no way to
> +determine or declare that a branch will be made available
> +in a repository with this behavior; the pulling user simply
>  must know this is the expected usage pattern for a branch.
>  +
>  [NOTE]
>