From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63509135A7F for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 19:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708457550; cv=none; b=lhctPB/aABNfLFHgFDxBPPNjcCA7z59HQ1PelXDsREWUSqkaqXDesvyNI9B2CaJSE/NyjGRqO43s0tylX+hgBaV9ZqOA+KNlHQyUFY2mkTvLiKVT006lbmXzE45ZrjtNrFv5MVEwA0WxCo0D8rU1DWYU3wVqrt/SauUtWSABRyw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708457550; c=relaxed/simple; bh=khPchM+Z5ZltuZGYei2VpWJzdIwWlVb929YU4bJekfg=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=olAduZlXTzEPIWMM7dlaik/YRKBtvDeFJ5rOsIp8iH4jPqDuDh+Il59vxkN+9v52q2uC6TIzzlw3m1u05tSkGtLfiFzP9pmB1PZx4FQlRmyEO38/Tb8L/zE6yKTiiCGHlaJAfqCBer1nLUmkN6IGJAWagWnZvnPEQ4qibctXyMY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=Bjg/n34g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="Bjg/n34g" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1708457543; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ThN/AJZ76CBxGe/XZidhIGAEeCoxX4j6b+vfRUkZ5fQ=; b=Bjg/n34gbR5VoRfFLP0O5wbF7c/s94kZc9CQIjspkgeF0JZz1voNgxEqTr36uy7s3g1tIY qRJ4hUMhHDA7IRJLPl3cuXliDnWrUQKJ6Q5QLR6dH/Ic9SMVmIZawcjvSan7uT7Ew8H8UM DdBlCVA2YqIqyQPSZN9P/Q2VzUjbzW5YnT9LZeh318fDpUiFo+e1H8TafqJB5tEXuriq9S m7M3am18UDuYKR9Hn90zbauOGyaxdYoXKFRxgZxUn3YVqu4/1uFVUj1hbaZC503z+1437I wXmMWu/jUpgEm7P0nlVdssuo5KOwMrUJwm0pnIePdV6BBR+b3FjGIrXAhjorFQ== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:32:23 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n_Justo?= , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations In-Reply-To: References: <3cbc78bb5729f304b30bf37a18d1762af553aa00.1708022441.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <2a4de8c4-4955-4891-859c-58730a41e5af@gmail.com> <35738a93f5cbace5b3235ce614b7afbf@manjaro.org> Message-ID: <95b86d73f934b486171c7e169080f43e@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-02-20 19:24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dragan Simic writes: > >>> My advice would be to stick to vs that contrasts well. >> >> I appreciate the directness and honesty. How about using >> "" >> and "" instead, which, although more wordy, would be more >> consistent with "" that's used in a number of other places? > > I have slight aversion to non-words like "oldbranch" (not > "old-branch"), but not that much. > > Quite honestly, in a document whose primary topic is "branch", I > doubt that repeating "branch" all over the place would be the > consistency we should be aiming for in the first place, when it is > clear from the context that we are talking about branches. > > The updates we are making to Documentation/git-branch.txt that (1) > slims wordy description of different modes in the DESCRIPTION > section, (2) make option description of "-m" mention what > argument(s) the option takes, and (3) rmove standalone > and description are all about making the necessary piece > of information easier to find in one place (namely, the option > description where "-m [] []" > is described) without having to jump around all over in the > documentation, so in that sense, I would think the way to go is to > aim for brevity that takes advantage of the local context. It's hard not to agree with the way you laid this out. :) In a nutshell, the way I see it, using "" and "" is also fine. It's also fine with me to use "" instead of ""; in fact, if we go with "" and "", we should go with "", too.