Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

[Thomas Ackermann]

 
> 
> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes
> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used
> to say "Folders" may not know what it is.
> 
I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth
to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.

> 
> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this
> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a
> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is
> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?
> 
I considered it "irrelevant" because it tries to define 
"evil merge" which is - at least to my experience - not used
as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.

> 
> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect
> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is
> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.
> 
I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that
this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.


---
Thomas

Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

[Junio C Hamano]

Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> writes:

>> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect
>> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is
>> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.
>> 
> I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that
> this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.
>
>> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes
>> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used
>> to say "Folders" may not know what it is.
>> 
> I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth
> to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.

For the above two (they are of the same theme) to help one audience,
I tend to be cautious and try not to say "I don't fall into the
target audience, and to me it is misleading/irrelevant, so let's
remove it".

>> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this
>> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a
>> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is
>> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?
>> 
> I considered it "irrelevant" because it tries to define 
> "evil merge" which is - at least to my experience - not used
> as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.

In a merge-heavy workflow, evil merges have to happen from time to
time, and it is a good concept to know about.

I however think the description is too literal and it does not lead
to the understanding of what it is used for.  I see a few questions
on the stackoverflow with unsatisfactory literal answers, too.