From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: Patch to tutorial.txt Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:49:31 +0100 Message-ID: <200611200949.32722.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <4d8e3fd30611191444r710f23e5uc488d35aa4abaf06@mail.gmail.com> <4d8e3fd30611200030p1d117445qd3f7d619c18a0633@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=PLCSfpMofuC5G9Kwj0PVgtwLuC9cWumVgFfjjBnzS2BcSgQ1FZXHrCvpiXvKt0AQ+xFRdgWSUx8M6deNJIeEOkdZ+9Vm1BLMnxHVQXEQe7rZpZg5sErVMRwcTE3gvBbxMfoB493mPaZWOsrgrY2OtyKjJ0Z5fSxFvHq5HStjPZ4= User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <4d8e3fd30611200030p1d117445qd3f7d619c18a0633@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gm4p2-0006Qv-U7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:48:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934010AbWKTIsJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:48:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934013AbWKTIsJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:48:09 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:37026 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934010AbWKTIsI (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:48:08 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so1119034ugc for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:48:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr7426026ugm.1164012486882; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-81-190-24-209.torun.mm.pl ( [81.190.24.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24sm8046874ugf.2006.11.20.00.48.06; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:48:06 -0800 (PST) To: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > On 11/19/06, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: >>> From: Paolo Ciarrocchi >>> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:41:31 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to >>> make it easier to be understood by the reader >> >> Wordwrap. Perhaps it would be better to split description into short line, >> and two-line description. See http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/CommitMessageConventions In short, it is better to split description into short one-line description, for example "Documentation: Make comment about merging in tutorial.txt more clear" followed by empty line, then longer description of changes (if any), for example One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to make it easier to be understood by the reader followed by empty line, then signoff line, for example Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi > This is not clear to me, when I do a "git commit -a" I can add a text using vi, > should I manually split the text in multiple lines? > Only the first line will be part of the Subject? Yes. The rest will be in the email body. >> [...] >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> at this point the two branches have diverged, with different changes >>> -made in each. To merge the changes made in the two branches, run >>> +made in each. To merge the changes made in experimental into master run >> >> I would rather say: >> To merge the changes made in the two branches into master, run > > Why Jakub? There are only two branches, master and experimental. > While sitting in master and doing git pull . experimental I would > expect to merge I did in experimental into master. Changes did in > master are alreay merged in master. Am I wrong? For me, "merge" in "to merge the changes" phrase is merge in common-sense meaning of the world, not the SCM jargon. Merge the changes == join the changes, so you have to give both sides, both changes you join. Merge the changes == take changes in branch 'experimental' since forking, take changes in branch 'master' since forking, join those changes together (merge), and put the result of this joining (this merge) into branch 'master'. On the contrary, in "merge branch 'experimenta' into 'master'" phrase "merge" is in the SCM meaning of this word. Just my 2 eurocoents of not native English speaker... -- Jakub Narebski