Re: [PATCH] Use 'fast-forward' all over the place

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is this meant to replace the previous one that is already queued: a0c0ecb
> (user-manual: use 'fast-forward', 2009-10-11)?

Yes.

> It seems that these mostly match a mechanical token replacement
> "s/([fF])ast forward/$1ast-forward/g" in the Documentation area,
> but I suspect there may be some manual fixes.
>
> Token-replace is much harder to review than to produce, as the result of
> such mechanical substitution needs to be examined to see if each change
> makes sense individually.

I manually replaced each instance, and reviewed the patch myself. Most
of the changes are essentially the same, except a few instances:

"Fast forward" -> fast-forward
Fast Forward Only -> Fast-forward Only

> I suspect the patch would have been much easier to the reviewers it it
> stated somewhere in the log message:
>
>  (1) how the mechanical change was produced;

There wasn't such.

>  (2) what criteria was used to choose between leaving the mechanical
>     change as-is and rewording them manually; and

If it wasn't straight forward. I considered the following straightforward:
fast forward -> fast-forward
fast forwarded -> fast-forwarded
fast forwarding -> fast-forwarding
fast forwardable -> fast-forwardable
non-fast forward -> non-fast-forward
Fast forward -> Fast-forward
Fast forwarding -> Fast-forwarding

>  (3) where these non-mechanical changes are.

Mentioned on the second comment.

> Here are the list of paths I looked at (during this sitting which did
> not go til the end of the patch):
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt
>
> OK
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-http-push.txt b/Documentation/git-http-push.txt
>
> OK
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>
> OK, except for two hunks below I am not absolutely sure.
>
>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ EXAMPLES below for details.
>>  Pushing an empty <src> allows you to delete the <dst> ref from
>>  the remote repository.
>>  +
>> -The special refspec `:` (or `{plus}:` to allow non-fast forward updates)
>> +The special refspec `:` (or `{plus}:` to allow non-fast-forward updates)
>>  directs git to push "matching" branches: for every branch that exists on
>>  the local side, the remote side is updated if a branch of the same name
>>  already exists on the remote side.  This is the default operation mode
>
> Hmm, is non-fast-forward a yet another compound word?

Yes. AFAIK.

>> @@ -342,9 +342,9 @@ git push origin :experimental::
>
> Likewise.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-read-tree.txt b/Documentation/git-read-tree.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-receive-pack.txt b/Documentation/git-receive-pack.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-reset.txt b/Documentation/git-reset.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt b/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt b/Documentation/gitcore-tutorial.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/githooks.txt b/Documentation/githooks.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>
> OK, except for this hunk I am not sure about.
>
>> @@ -2115,7 +2115,7 @@ $ git checkout release && git pull
>>
>>  Important note!  If you have any local changes in these branches, then
>>  this merge will create a commit object in the history (with no local
>> -changes git will simply do a "Fast forward" merge).  Many people dislike
>> +changes git will simply do a fast-forward merge).  Many people dislike
>>  the "noise" that this creates in the Linux history, so you should avoid
>>  doing this capriciously in the "release" branch, as these noisy commits
>>  will become part of the permanent history when you ask Linus to pull
>
> It may be Ok not to emphasize this word but that is not about "fast
> forward" vs "fast-forward".  It is more about "in this context, this word
> does not have to be emphasized" kind of copy-editing which does not have
> to be limited to the case where the "word" is 'fast-forward'.

I couldn't parse that. From what I can see "Fast forward" was
emphasized because the author thought the words didn't make much sense
separated. Now that the word is fast-forward, there's no need to
emphasize.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras