Re: [PATCH v2] doc: describe promisor remote fetch order

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Hussain Sitamouwala <husainsitamuwala21@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Explain that promisor remotes accepted from a server are tried
>> before other promisor remotes, and that the remaining objects are
>> requested from the next remote when a fetch fails. The ordering
>
> Well written.  "next" sounded a bit strange thing to say in the
> context, but it was understandable.
>
> Assuming that I understood what the author wanted to say correctly,
> that is ;-), so let's double-check.  Would it mean the same thing if
> we replace "next remote" with "other promisor remotes"?

After thinking about this a bit more, I know why I thought this was
strange.

>>  When fetching objects, promisor remotes are tried one after the other
>> +client accepted from a server's advertisement are tried before the
>> +other promisor remotes. If a fetch from a remote fails, the objects
>> +that are still missing are requested from the next remote.

I think the entire sentence after "If a fetch from a remote fails"
should be removed.  You already established that while fetching,
remotes are tried one after the other.  What does it mean?  We try
promisor A, and if the fetch from it fails to obtain certain
objects, we try promisor B, and then C, and so on.  We already said
that and you clarified in which order these promisors A and B and C 
are consulted.

So, there is absolutely nothing left to be said.  The last sentence,
while it may not say anything wrong, is simply redundant without
adding any new information.