Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] doc: datamodel: link to the glossary

["Julia Evans" <julia@jvns.ca>]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026, at 1:04 PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026, at 15:32, Julia Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2026, at 7:32 AM, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gitdatamodel.adoc b/Documentation/gitdatamodel.adoc
>>> index dcfdff0346f..d588630e633 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/gitdatamodel.adoc
>>> +++ b/Documentation/gitdatamodel.adoc
>>> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ Git's core operations use 4 kinds of data:
>>>  3. <<index,The index>>, also known as the staging area
>>>  4. <<reflogs,Reflogs>>: logs of changes to references ("ref log")
>>>
>>> +See linkgit:gitglossary[7] for a comprehensive terminology reference.
>>
>> I'd prefer to put this in SEE ALSO instead.
>
> It’s also in See Also. Do you mean put the whole sentence in See Also
> instead of just this link? I have never seen See Also be used for more
> than just a comma-separated list of links.
>
> I’m also okay with just dropping it.

Ah, I didn't see it in See Also, I'm still struggling to get used to this email-based
patch review workflow :)

I think just dropping it is fine.

>> Also "comprehensive terminology reference" might be a bit aspirational
>> like you say. Maybe just "terminology reference"?
>
> Yeah. The idea behind having any adjective or modifier was that just
> “terminology reference” seemed to not contrast the roles of these two
> pages enough. Since they are both about terminology after all, just one
> of them drills down into the core concepts/terminology.
>
> Or it could be
>
>    ... terminology reference for all of Git.
>
> Which seems a bit much and wordy. Or maybe
>
>    ... general terminology reference.
>
>>
>> Thanks for adding these links!
>
> Thanks for reviewing. :·)