{"thread":{"id":"33356","subject":"Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt","startedAt":"2013-04-02T17:24:57Z","lastAt":"2013-04-02T18:26:58Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Thomas Ackermann","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":3},"messages":[{"id":"212917","messageId":"559824715.741522.1364923497242.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net","threadId":"33356","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt","fromName":"Thomas Ackermann","fromEmail":"th.acker@arcor.de","sentAt":"2013-04-02T17:24:57Z","receivedAt":"2013-04-02T17:24:57Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"th.acker@arcor.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1358536?v=4"},"body":" \n> \n> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes\n> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used\n> to say \"Folders\" may not know what it is.\n> \nI assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth\nto keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.\n\n> \n> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this\n> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a\n> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is\n> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?\n> \nI considered it \"irrelevant\" because it tries to define \n\"evil merge\" which is - at least to my experience - not used\nas some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.\n\n> \n> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect\n> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is\n> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.\n> \nI assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that\nthis addition will confuse more people than help somebody.\n\n\n---\nThomas\n"},{"id":"212932","messageId":"7vy5d0dc0d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"33356","inReplyTo":"559824715.741522.1364923497242.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net","subject":"Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2013-04-02T18:26:58Z","receivedAt":"2013-04-02T18:26:58Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> writes:\n\n>> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect\n>> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is\n>> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.\n>> \n> I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that\n> this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.\n>\n>> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes\n>> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used\n>> to say \"Folders\" may not know what it is.\n>> \n> I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth\n> to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.\n\nFor the above two (they are of the same theme) to help one audience,\nI tend to be cautious and try not to say \"I don't fall into the\ntarget audience, and to me it is misleading/irrelevant, so let's\nremove it\".\n\n>> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this\n>> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a\n>> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is\n>> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?\n>> \n> I considered it \"irrelevant\" because it tries to define \n> \"evil merge\" which is - at least to my experience - not used\n> as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.\n\nIn a merge-heavy workflow, evil merges have to happen from time to\ntime, and it is a good concept to know about.\n\nI however think the description is too literal and it does not lead\nto the understanding of what it is used for.  I see a few questions\non the stackoverflow with unsatisfactory literal answers, too.\n"}]}