From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Expand explanation of the use of + in git push refspecs. Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:10:47 -0800 Message-ID: <7veixtk814.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090219180258.2C7983360A6@rincewind> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marc Branchaud , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 20 06:14:17 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 1LaNiF-0001zU-9g for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:14:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751115AbZBTFK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750992AbZBTFK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:58 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:40002 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750765AbZBTFK5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52369B91A; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D1A59B918; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Sverre Rabbelier's message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:20:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D99BAB6C-FF0C-11DD-94C3-B26E209B64D9-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sverre Rabbelier writes: >> + branch. *This can abandon commits in the origin repository.* > > I liked your wording with the commits becoming dangling better. > >> +That is, commits A and B would belong to an unreachable branch without a >> +symbolic name. > > Perhaps it would be better to say those commits "would no longer > belong to a branch with a symbolic name, and thus become unreachable"? I agree with you on both counts.