From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:40:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130924054053.GA6192@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1ezYMSuQRMp_SY1HqLiuyuf0tjuf3Fn6fXF2drODZ_iw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:36:38AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Yeah, it's not a term we use elsewhere, so it's not great. Probably
> > "default remote" would be better, or even just say "branch.*.remote for
> > the current branch" or something.
>
> Yeah, general users don't know what you are talking about when you say that.
Right, I understand your complaint and agree that those terms are
potentially confusing.
> > I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike
> > the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case.
>
> For most users it's the remote configured by:
>
> % git branch --set-upstream-to foo
> % git checkout -b foo origin/foo
> % git checkout -t -b foo bar
>
> So when they read "upstream branch" they know from where it got configured.
Yes, but it is also wrong, in the sense that the upstream branch is
unrelated. You are giving breadcrumbs to users who know "upstream
branch" as a concept and nothing else, but you are misleading users who
know that branch.*.remote exists.
I was hoping you might suggest something that can help both users by
being both precise and giving the appropriate breadcrumbs.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 5:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-21 14:09 [PATCH 0/2] fetch: trivial fixes Felipe Contreras
2013-09-21 14:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:03 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 5:23 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:30 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 5:36 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:40 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-09-24 5:57 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 6:10 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 6:31 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 6:54 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 7:41 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-21 14:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] remote: fix trivial memory leak Felipe Contreras
2013-09-24 5:19 ` Jeff King
2013-10-15 21:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130924054053.GA6192@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).