From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: [PATCH] Grammar fixes to "merge" and "patch-id" docs Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:03:53 +0100 Message-ID: <249E343F-DE3D-45B1-B733-BA33FC4F2AB8@wincent.com> References: <1238005422-7647-1-git-send-email-win@wincent.com> <7vocvp310v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 25 20:06:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LmYPy-0004b2-4W for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:05:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754058AbZCYTEF convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:04:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752879AbZCYTEB (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:04:01 -0400 Received: from wincent1.inetu.net ([209.235.192.161]:43613 "EHLO wincent1.inetu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750718AbZCYTEA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:04:00 -0400 Received: from cuzco.lan (179.pool85-53-16.dynamic.orange.es [85.53.16.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by wincent1.inetu.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PJ3rb0021930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:03:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vocvp310v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: El 25/3/2009, a las 19:33, Junio C Hamano escribi=F3: > Wincent Colaiuta writes: > >> If you tried a merge which resulted in a complex conflicts and >> -would want to start over, you can recover with 'git-reset'. >> +want to start over, you can recover with 'git-reset'. > > Reads Ok to me either way... "tried" is in the past preterit, so the second verb, the one after the = =20 "and", should be "want" due to concordance. "would want" is not =20 actually wrong, but it is bad form. It is a common mistake among non-=20 native speaker to use "would" when it's not required in cases like =20 this, probably due to confusion with the pattern "If X, I would =20 Y" (but note that there's no "and" in that case). (Speaking as a native English-speaker and part-time English teacher, =20 who this very week has been teaching classes about modal verbs like =20 "would".) >> diff --git a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt b/Documentation/=20 >> merge-strategies.txt >> index 1276f85..ee7f754 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt >> @@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ MERGE STRATEGIES >> >> resolve:: >> This can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch >> - and another branch you pulled from) using 3-way merge >> + and another branch you pulled from) using a 3-way merge >> algorithm. It tries to carefully detect criss-cross > > Hmph, would that be an 'a' or 'the'? Doesn't really matter, IMO, but some kind of article is required =20 there. If there is literally only one 3-way merge algorithm in =20 computer science, then "the" would be best. I chose "a" because I was =20 thinking of it as "Git's interpretation of the 3-way merge algorithm". >> recursive:: >> - This can only resolve two heads using 3-way merge >> - algorithm. When there are more than one common >> - ancestors that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a >> + This can only resolve two heads using a 3-way merge >> + algorithm. When there is more than one common >> + ancestor that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a > > Do you need an article before the latter "3-way merge", perhaps "the"= ? Probably wouldn't hurt. >> @@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ recursive:: >> pulling or merging one branch. >> >> octopus:: >> - This resolves more than two-head case, but refuses to do >> - complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is >> + This resolves the more than two-heads case, but refuses to do >> + a complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is > > Perhaps "resolves cases with more than two heads" is easier to read? Yes, I agree. Cheers, Wincent