Re: [PATCH 1/5] revisions.txt: document more special refs

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> >
> > Some special refs, namely HEAD, FETCH_HEAD, ORIG_HEAD, MERGE_HEAD and
> > CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, are mentioned and described in 'gitrevisions', but some
> > others, namely REBASE_HEAD, REVERT_HEAD, and BISECT_HEAD, are not.
> >
> > Add a small description of these special refs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/revisions.txt | 11 +++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
> > index 9aa58052bc7..98b8f89bc8d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt
> > @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ characters and to avoid word splitting.
> >    first match in the following rules:
> >  
> >    . If '$GIT_DIR/<refname>' exists, that is what you mean (this is usually
> > -    useful only for `HEAD`, `FETCH_HEAD`, `ORIG_HEAD`, `MERGE_HEAD`
> > -    and `CHERRY_PICK_HEAD`);
> > +    useful only for `HEAD`, `FETCH_HEAD`, `ORIG_HEAD`, `MERGE_HEAD`,
> > +    `REBASE_HEAD`, `REVERT_HEAD`, `CHERRY_PICK_HEAD` and `BISECT_HEAD`);
> 
> Adding missing ones and enumerating them indeed is good, but I
> wonder if the readers will be helped if they are exposed to the
> phrase "pseudoref" here.

First time I've heard that term.

> 	This is usually useful only for the pseudorefs, i.e. `HEAD`,
> 	`FETCH_HEAD`, ..."

Isn't `HEAD` supposed to be a "symbolic ref"?

It definitely seems some explanation is missing.

-- 
Felipe Contreras