{"thread":{"id":"53742","subject":"[PATCH 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","startedAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:20Z","lastAt":"2020-07-01T10:42:52Z","messageCount":30,"participants":["Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","Đoàn Trần Công Danh","Junio C Hamano","Johannes Schindelin","Denton Liu","Kaartic Sivaraam"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":3},"messages":[{"id":"400370","messageId":"pull.668.git.1592924655.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:12Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:20Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n\nPlease note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\nwhere pu is used:\n\n * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n for the English \"could\").\n * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n \"pack-objects updates\".\n\nJohannes Schindelin (3):\n docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`\n tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced\n\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++--\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 +--\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 ++--\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 +++---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 +--\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 +++---\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 +-\n 14 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)\n\n\nbase-commit: 5c2bcdf952448837f110308efeea592e47ad0143\nPublished-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-668%2Fdscho%2Faccommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v1\nFetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-668/dscho/accommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v1\nPull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/668\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400371","messageId":"dc6f97129019e9176d91c77576a84549c00a74b5.1592924655.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.git.1592924655.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:13Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:21Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs of \"What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2020, #04; Mon, 22)\", there is no\nlonger any `pu` branch, but a `seen` branch.\n\nWhile we technically do not even need to update the manual pages, it\nmakes sense to update them because they clearly talk about branches in\ngit.git.\n\nPlease note that in two instances, this patch not only updates the\nbranch name, but also the description \"(proposed updates)\".\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes have been added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 ++++----\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 ++++++++--------\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\nindex 427274df4d9..d85c9b5143c 100644\n--- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n@@ -1179,8 +1179,8 @@ look at the section below this one for some context.)\n [[after-approval]]\n === After Review Approval\n \n-The Git project has four integration branches: `pu`, `next`, `master`, and\n-`maint`. Your change will be placed into `pu` fairly early on by the maintainer\n+The Git project has four integration branches: `seen`, `next`, `master`, and\n+`maint`. Your change will be placed into `seen` fairly early on by the maintainer\n while it is still in the review process; from there, when it is ready for wider\n testing, it will be merged into `next`. Plenty of early testers use `next` and\n may report issues. Eventually, changes in `next` will make it to `master`,\ndiff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nindex ecf9438cf08..4aaf115111e 100644\n--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n base your work on the tip of the topic.\n \n * A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new\n- feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`,\n+ feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`,\n base your work on the tip of that topic.\n \n * Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should\n@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n into the series.\n \n * In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics\n- not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send\n+ not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and send\n out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to\n wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and\n rebase your work.\n@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n these parts should be based on their trees.\n \n To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent\n-master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n+master..seen` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n commit is the tip of the topic branch.\n \n [[separate-commits]]\n@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ help you find out who they are.\n and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.\n \n In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up\n-from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for\n+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for\n people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to\n their trees themselves.\n \n@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ their trees themselves.\n master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied\n patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top\n of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not\n- tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of\n+ tell you if your patch is merged in 'seen' if you rebase on top of\n master).\n \n * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\nindex 5b1909fdf4f..45b6d8e633c 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ refspec.\n * Using refspecs explicitly:\n +\n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git fetch origin +pu:pu maint:tmp\n+$ git fetch origin +seen:seen maint:tmp\n ------------------------------------------------\n +\n-This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `pu` and `tmp` in\n+This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `seen` and `tmp` in\n the local repository by fetching from the branches (respectively)\n-`pu` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n+`seen` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n +\n-The `pu` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n+The `seen` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n because it is prefixed with a plus sign; `tmp` will not be.\n \n * Peek at a remote's branch, without configuring the remote in your local\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\nindex 0a5c8b7d493..492e573856f 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n-$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n+$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n-c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n+c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\ndiff --git a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\nindex 1bd919f92bd..3216b4b704c 100644\n--- a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n@@ -278,13 +278,13 @@ $ git am -3 -i -s ./+to-apply <4>\n $ compile/test\n $ git switch -c hold/linus && git am -3 -i -s ./+hold-linus <5>\n $ git switch topic/one && git rebase master <6>\n-$ git switch -C pu next <7>\n+$ git switch -C seen next <7>\n $ git merge topic/one topic/two && git merge hold/linus <8>\n $ git switch maint\n $ git cherry-pick master~4 <9>\n $ compile/test\n $ git tag -s -m \"GIT 0.99.9x\" v0.99.9x <10>\n-$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next pu <11>\n+$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next seen <11>\n do\n \tgit show-branch ko/$branch $branch <12>\n done\n@@ -294,14 +294,14 @@ $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>\n <1> see what you were in the middle of doing, if anything.\n <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.\n Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`\n-and `pu` (potential updates).\n+and `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer).\n <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others\n that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).\n <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.\n <5> create topic branch as needed and apply, again with sign-offs.\n <6> rebase internal topic branch that has not been merged to the\n master or exposed as a part of a stable branch.\n-<7> restart `pu` every time from the next.\n+<7> restart `seen` every time from the next.\n <8> and bundle topic branches still cooking.\n <9> backport a critical fix.\n <10> create a signed tag.\n@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ repository at kernel.org, and looks like this:\n \tfetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/ko/*\n \tpush = refs/heads/master\n \tpush = refs/heads/next\n-\tpush = +refs/heads/pu\n+\tpush = +refs/heads/seen\n \tpush = refs/heads/maint\n ------------\n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\nindex abc0dc6bc79..2db7ba78424 100644\n--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also\n \n There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:\n \n-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n- below).\n+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n+ Branches\" below).\n \n Each of the four branches is usually a direct descendant of the one\n above it.\n \n Conceptually, the feature enters at an unstable branch (usually 'next'\n-or 'pu'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n+or 'seen'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n considered stable enough.\n \n \n@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ If you make it (very) clear that this branch is going to be deleted\n right after the testing, you can even publish this branch, for example\n to give the testers a chance to work with it, or other developers a\n chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git`\n-has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'.\n+has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'seen'.\n \n \n Branch management for a release\n@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ This will not happen if the content of the branches was verified as\n described in the previous section.\n \n \n-Branch management for next and pu after a feature release\n+Branch management for next and seen after a feature release\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n \n After a feature release, the integration branch 'next' may optionally be\n@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ so.\n If you do this, then you should make a public announcement indicating\n that 'next' was rewound and rebuilt.\n \n-The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'pu'. A public\n-announcement is not necessary since 'pu' is a throw-away branch, as\n+The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'seen'. A public\n+announcement is not necessary since 'seen' is a throw-away branch, as\n described above.\n \n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\nindex 833652983fa..fd480b86452 100644\n--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ $ git branch -r\n origin/man\n origin/master\n origin/next\n- origin/pu\n+ origin/seen\n origin/todo\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400372","messageId":"17adbd5639f87d8f8d36b0d95e4f2fddebf3c28f.1592924655.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.git.1592924655.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:15Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs our test suite partially reflects how we work in the Git project, it\nis natural that the branch name `pu` was used in a couple places.\n\nSince that branch was renamed to `seen`, let's use the new name\nconsistently.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 ++++----\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 ++++++++--------\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 ++--\n 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh\nindex dda81b7d07a..8d62edd98b5 100755\n--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh\n+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh\n@@ -988,7 +988,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t+refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/scratch/maint\n \t+refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \t+refs/heads/t/topic:refs/remotes/scratch/t/topic\n \tEOF\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.setup-ffonly &&\n@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.respect-ffonly &&\n \trefs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \tEOF\n \n \tgit clone .git/ setbranches &&\n@@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.replace &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu t/topic &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen t/topic &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.add-two &&\n \n@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.setup-ffonly &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.respect-ffonly\n \t) &&\ndiff --git a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\nindex 77938db77f8..d11382f769f 100755\n--- a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n+++ b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n@@ -747,42 +747,42 @@ test_expect_success 'deletion of a non-existent ref alone does trigger post-rece\n '\n \n test_expect_success 'mixed ref updates, deletes, invalid deletes trigger hooks with correct input' '\n-\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/pu &&\n+\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/seen &&\n \torgmaster=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tnewmaster=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \torgnext=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/next) &&\n \tnewnext=$ZERO_OID &&\n-\torgpu=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/pu) &&\n-\tnewpu=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n+\torgseen=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/seen) &&\n+\tnewseen=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tgit push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master \\\n-\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/pu :refs/heads/next \\\n+\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/seen :refs/heads/next \\\n \t :refs/heads/nonexistent &&\n \t(\n \t\tcd testrepo/.git &&\n \t\tcat >pre-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\t$ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/nonexistent\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master $orgmaster $newmaster\n \t\trefs/heads/next $orgnext $newnext\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu $orgpu $newpu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen $orgseen $newseen\n \t\trefs/heads/nonexistent $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master\n \t\trefs/heads/next\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\ttest_cmp pre-receive.expect pre-receive.actual &&\ndiff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh\nindex aff5ef3d760..a8c2ac9d70f 100755\n--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh\n+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh\n@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ test_expect_success '__gitcomp - prefix' '\n '\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp - suffix' '\n-\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next pu\" \"branch.\" \\\n+\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next seen\" \"branch.\" \\\n \t\t\"ma\" \".\" <<-\\EOF\n \tbranch.master.Z\n \tbranch.maint.Z\n@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ read -r -d \"\" refs <<-\\EOF\n maint\n master\n next\n-pu\n+seen\n EOF\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp_nl - trailing space' '\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400373","messageId":"b792cb036cf9e8b9028c00d4c657105a004d5dc0.1592924655.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.git.1592924655.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:14Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T15:04:24Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nThis patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have\nbeen added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change\nthem in hindsight.\n\nBut as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to\nGit's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the\nstatus quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the\nprovided information accordingly.\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes were added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n 4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\nindex 73be8b49f84..a67130debb6 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n demonstrated to be regression free. New changes are tested\n in 'next' before merged to 'master'.\n \n- - 'pu' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n+ - 'seen' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'.\n \n - The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to\n@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n of the cycle.\n \n - Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all\n- of 'master'. 'pu' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n+ of 'master'. 'seen' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n is rebuilt directly on 'master'.\n \n - The tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than any\n@@ -229,12 +229,12 @@ by doing the following:\n series?)\n \n - Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere\n- between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n+ between 'master' and 'seen' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n \n The result is a script that lists topics to be merged in order to\n- rebuild 'pu' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n+ rebuild 'seen' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n later topics that should not be in 'jch' yet. Add a line that\n consists of '### match next' before the name of the first topic\n in the output that should be in 'jch' but not in 'next' yet.\n@@ -291,29 +291,29 @@ by doing the following:\n merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker;\n add it again to the appropriate place when it happens.\n \n- - Rebuild 'pu'.\n+ - Rebuild 'seen'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu'\n+ Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'seen'\n in the script. Then\n \n- $ git checkout -B pu jch\n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ git checkout -B seen jch\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with\n+ When all is well, clean up the redo-seen.sh script with\n \n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh -u\n \n Double check by running\n \n- $ git branch --no-merged pu\n+ $ git branch --no-merged seen\n \n to see there is no unexpected leftover topics.\n \n At this point, build-test the result for semantic conflicts, and\n if there are, prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see\n- appendix), and rebuild the 'pu' branch from scratch, starting at\n+ appendix), and rebuild the 'seen' branch from scratch, starting at\n the tip of 'jch'.\n \n - Update \"What's cooking\" message to review the updates to\n@@ -323,14 +323,14 @@ by doing the following:\n \n $ Meta/cook\n \n- This script inspects the history between master..pu, finds tips\n+ This script inspects the history between master..seen, finds tips\n of topic branches, compares what it found with the current\n contents in Meta/whats-cooking.txt, and updates that file.\n- Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..pu are\n+ Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..seen are\n added to the \"New topics\" section, topics listed in the file that\n- are no longer found in master..pu are moved to the \"Graduated to\n+ are no longer found in master..seen are moved to the \"Graduated to\n master\" section, and topics whose commits changed their states\n- (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated\n+ (e.g. used to be only in 'seen', now merged to 'next') are updated\n with change markers \"<<\" and \">>\".\n \n Look for lines enclosed in \"<<\" and \">>\"; they hold contents from\n@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ Observations\n Some observations to be made.\n \n * Each topic is tested individually, and also together with other\n- topics cooking first in 'pu', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n+ topics cooking first in 'seen', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'.\n \n * A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in\n@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ new use of the variable under its old name. When these two topics\n are merged together, the reference to the variable newly added by\n the latter topic will still use the old name in the result.\n \n-The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-pu\n+The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-seen\n scripts implements a crude but usable way to work this issue around.\n When the script merges branch $X, it checks if \"refs/merge-fix/$X\"\n exists, and if so, the effect of it is squashed into the result of\n@@ -431,14 +431,14 @@ commit that can be squashed into a result of mechanical merge to\n correct semantic conflicts.\n \n After finding that the result of merging branch \"ai/topic\" to an\n-integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say pu~4, check the\n+integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say seen~4, check the\n problematic merge out on a detached HEAD, edit the working tree to\n fix the semantic conflict, and make a separate commit to record the\n fix-up:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~4\n+ $ git checkout seen~4\n $ git show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check\n- Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu\n+ Merge branch 'ai/topic' to seen\n $ edit\n $ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a\n \n@@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ result:\n Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the\n merge:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n+ $ git checkout seen~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n $ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate\n- $ git diff pu~4\n+ $ git diff seen~4\n \n This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the\n resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the\n@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ branch needs this merge-fix is because another branch merged earlier\n to the integration branch changed the underlying assumption ai/topic\n branch made (e.g. ai/topic branch added a site to refer to a\n variable, while the other branch renamed that variable and adjusted\n-existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-pu) script\n+existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-seen) script\n to merge ai/topic branch before the other branch, then the above\n merge-fix should not be applied while merging ai/topic, but should\n instead be applied while merging the other branch. You would need\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\nindex 02cb5f758d6..ece51ddddce 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Cc:\tPetr Baudis , Linus Torvalds \n Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree\n Date:\tSun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700\n Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the\n- public \"pu\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n+ public \"seen\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n the \"master\" branch, and how \"rebase\" works. Also discussed\n is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches\n upstream.\n@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Petr Baudis writes:\n > where Junio C Hamano told me that...\n >> Linus Torvalds writes:\n >>\n->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your \"pu\"\n->> > branch to the real branches.\n+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your\n+>> > \"seen\" branch to the real branches.\n >>\n > Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?\n --------------------------------------\n@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.\n I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core\n Git tools.\n \n-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I\n+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I\n wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of\n-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit\n+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit\n ancestry graph looked like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \n So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n \n After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \\\n \\---> master\n@@ -58,31 +58,31 @@ After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).\n The new master commit holds my documentation updates.\n \n-Now I have to deal with \"pu\" branch.\n+Now I have to deal with \"seen\" branch.\n \n This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when\n Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look\n-at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"pu\"\n+at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"seen\"\n branch being the \"contributor\" branch. Your work started at the\n tip of the \"maintainer\" branch some time ago, you made a lot of\n progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some\n other commits you do not have yet. And \"git rebase\" was written\n with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like\n-\"pu\". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you\n+\"seen\". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you\n eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily\n all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later\n operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward\n-your changes) \"pu\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n+your changes) \"seen\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n \n- $ git checkout pu\n- $ git rebase master pu\n+ $ git checkout seen\n+ $ git rebase master seen\n \n What this does is to pick all the commits since the current\n-branch (note that I now am on \"pu\" branch) forked from the\n+branch (note that I now am on \"seen\" branch) forked from the\n master branch, and forward port these changes.\n \n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n- \\ *\"pu\" head\n+ \\ *\"seen\" head\n \\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'\n \n The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and\n@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.\n \n Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file\n anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if\n-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"pu\", you\n+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"seen\", you\n can run \"git prune\" to get rid of those original three commits.\n \n While I am talking about \"git rebase\", I should talk about how\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\nindex 149508e13bd..a3e5595a569 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ One of the changes I pulled into the 'master' branch turns out to\n break building Git with GCC 2.95. While they were well-intentioned\n portability fixes, keeping things working with gcc-2.95 was also\n important. Here is what I did to revert the change in the 'master'\n-branch and to adjust the 'pu' branch, using core Git tools and\n+branch and to adjust the 'seen' branch, using core Git tools and\n barebone Porcelain.\n \n First, prepare a throw-away branch in case I screw things up.\n@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ $ git diff master..revert-c99\n \n says nothing.\n \n-Then we rebase the 'pu' branch as usual.\n+Then we rebase the 'seen' branch as usual.\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git checkout pu\n-$ git tag pu-anchor pu\n+$ git checkout seen\n+$ git tag seen-anchor seen\n $ git rebase master\n * Applying: Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-The temporary tag 'pu-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n+The temporary tag 'seen-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n rebase' screws up. After this, I can do these for sanity check:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git diff pu-anchor..pu ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n+$ git diff seen-anchor..seen ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n $ make CC=gcc-2.95 clean test ;# make sure it fixed the breakage.\n $ make clean test ;# make sure it did not cause other breakage.\n ------------------------------------------------\n@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Everything is in the good order. I do not need the temporary branch\n or tag anymore, so remove them:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/pu-anchor\n+$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/seen-anchor\n $ git branch -d revert-c99\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n@@ -168,18 +168,18 @@ Committed merge 7fb9b7262a1d1e0a47bbfdcbbcf50ce0635d3f8f\n And the final repository status looks like this:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git show-branch --more=1 master pu rc\n+$ git show-branch --more=1 master seen rc\n ! [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n- ! [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ ! [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n * [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ---\n- + [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n- + [pu~1] More documentation updates.\n- + [pu~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n- + [pu~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n- + [pu~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n- + [pu~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n- + [pu~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n+ + [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ + [seen~1] More documentation updates.\n+ + [seen~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n+ + [seen~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n+ + [seen~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n+ + [seen~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n+ + [seen~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n - [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ++* [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n - [rc~1] Merge refs/heads/master from .\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\nindex 89821ec74fe..151ee84cebc 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ allowed-groups, to describe which heads can be pushed into by\n whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n refs/heads/master junio\n- +refs/heads/pu junio\n+ +refs/heads/seen junio\n refs/heads/cogito$ pasky\n refs/heads/bw/.* linus\n refs/heads/tmp/.* .*\n@@ -187,6 +187,6 @@ whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n With this, Linus can push or create \"bw/penguin\" or \"bw/zebra\"\n or \"bw/panda\" branches, Pasky can do only \"cogito\", and JC can\n-do master and pu branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n-can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the pu record means\n+do master and \"seen\" branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n+can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the \"seen\" record means\n that JC can make non-fast-forward pushes on it.\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400389","messageId":"20200623153106.GB20455@danh.dev","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"dc6f97129019e9176d91c77576a84549c00a74b5.1592924655.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh","fromEmail":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T15:31:06Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T15:31:15Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/42673067?v=4"},"body":"Hi Dscho,\n\nOn 2020-06-23 15:04:13+0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> index 0a5c8b7d493..492e573856f 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n> 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n> c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n> 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n> -$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n> +$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n\nrc is not with us anymore.\n\nShould we replace it with next, too?\n\n> 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n> -c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n> +c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n> $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n> $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n> d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\n\n-- \nDanh\n"},{"id":"400429","messageId":"xmqq5zbhd1em.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"20200623153106.GB20455@danh.dev","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T19:31:45Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T19:31:52Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes:\n\n> Hi Dscho,\n>\n> On 2020-06-23 15:04:13+0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n>> index 0a5c8b7d493..492e573856f 100644\n>> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n>> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n>> @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n>> 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n>> c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n>> 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n>> -$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n>> +$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n>\n> rc is not with us anymore.\n>\n> Should we replace it with next, too?\n\nI do not think so. I think we never had 'rc'.\n\nI think what the above example is demonstrating is this.\n\n SYNOPSIS calls the last command line arguments ; they are\n actually mere patterns (which is how these command line\n arguments are described in the documentation). It is *not* an\n error if no refs match a particular pattern.\n\nAnd because we have no refs that match the pattern \"rc\", we only see\n\"master\" and \"pu\" (now \"seen\") from the command.\n\nI see a couple of possible improvements here:\n\n - The \"...::\" documentation should explain what kind of\n pattern match is performed here. I recall these originally were\n just tail matches, but the rule might have been made more\n flexible over time.\n\n - The example should first explain the setting. The first sample\n depends on the current (./.) repository having these tags or it\n would not work (showing the sample upfront and explaining the\n outcome shown in the sample would work well in this case,\n e.g. \"we can see that in the current repository, there are tags\n X, Y and Z\"). The second one at least needs to say two things:\n the sample repository does not have a branch called 'rc' and that\n is why it is not shown, and it is not an error for patterns to\n produce no match.\n\nThanks.\n\n>\n>> 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n>> -c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n>> +c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n>> $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n>> $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n>> d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\n"},{"id":"400453","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006232330550.54@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqq5zbhd1em.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-23T21:32:14Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T21:32:30Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio & Danh,\n\nOn Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes:\n>\n> > On 2020-06-23 15:04:13+0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> index 0a5c8b7d493..492e573856f 100644\n> >> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n> >> 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n> >> c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n> >> 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n> >> -$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n> >> +$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n> >\n> > rc is not with us anymore.\n> >\n> > Should we replace it with next, too?\n>\n> I do not think so. I think we never had 'rc'.\n\nIndeed, and the context given in the patch demonstrates that no `rc` is\nshown, so I assumed the same things as Junio explained here:\n\n> I think what the above example is demonstrating is this.\n>\n> SYNOPSIS calls the last command line arguments ; they are\n> actually mere patterns (which is how these command line\n> arguments are described in the documentation). It is *not* an\n> error if no refs match a particular pattern.\n>\n> And because we have no refs that match the pattern \"rc\", we only see\n> \"master\" and \"pu\" (now \"seen\") from the command.\n\nPrecisely.\n\n> I see a couple of possible improvements here:\n>\n> - The \"...::\" documentation should explain what kind of\n> pattern match is performed here. I recall these originally were\n> just tail matches, but the rule might have been made more\n> flexible over time.\n>\n> - The example should first explain the setting. The first sample\n> depends on the current (./.) repository having these tags or it\n> would not work (showing the sample upfront and explaining the\n> outcome shown in the sample would work well in this case,\n> e.g. \"we can see that in the current repository, there are tags\n> X, Y and Z\"). The second one at least needs to say two things:\n> the sample repository does not have a branch called 'rc' and that\n> is why it is not shown, and it is not an error for patterns to\n> produce no match.\n\nThose sound like wonderful #leftoverbits to me.\n\nThank you,\nDscho\n\n>\n> Thanks.\n>\n> >\n> >> 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n> >> -c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n> >> +c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n> >> $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n> >> $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n> >> d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\n>\n"},{"id":"400477","messageId":"20200624004608.GA17052@danh.dev","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqq5zbhd1em.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh","fromEmail":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T00:46:08Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T00:46:22Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/42673067?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-06-23 12:31:45-0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes:\n> > On 2020-06-23 15:04:13+0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> index 0a5c8b7d493..492e573856f 100644\n> >> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n> >> @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n> >> 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n> >> c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n> >> 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n> >> -$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n> >> +$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n> >\n> > rc is not with us anymore.\n> >\n> > Should we replace it with next, too?\n> \n> I do not think so. I think we never had 'rc'.\n\nYou're right.\nActually, I didn't read the context after the diff but went to\n215a7ad1ef (Big tool rename., 2005-09-07) instead.\n\nIn that tree, there's a line for refs/heads/rc:\n\n\tb1d096f2926c4e37c9c0b6a7bf2119bedaa277cb refs/heads/rc\n\nNot sure why it was there in the past but it's fixed in\n6077d36299 (ls-remote doc: fix example invocation on git.git,\n2013-06-22)\n\n\n> I think what the above example is demonstrating is this.\n> \n> SYNOPSIS calls the last command line arguments ; they are\n> actually mere patterns (which is how these command line\n> arguments are described in the documentation). It is *not* an\n> error if no refs match a particular pattern.\n> \n> And because we have no refs that match the pattern \"rc\", we only see\n> \"master\" and \"pu\" (now \"seen\") from the command.\n> \n> I see a couple of possible improvements here:\n> \n> - The \"...::\" documentation should explain what kind of\n> pattern match is performed here. I recall these originally were\n> just tail matches, but the rule might have been made more\n> flexible over time.\n> \n> - The example should first explain the setting. The first sample\n> depends on the current (./.) repository having these tags or it\n> would not work (showing the sample upfront and explaining the\n> outcome shown in the sample would work well in this case,\n> e.g. \"we can see that in the current repository, there are tags\n> X, Y and Z\"). The second one at least needs to say two things:\n> the sample repository does not have a branch called 'rc' and that\n> is why it is not shown, and it is not an error for patterns to\n> produce no match.\n\nI guess this is a leftover from 6077d36299 (ls-remote doc: fix example\ninvocation on git.git, 2013-06-22), if this was documented together\nwith said commit, it'll be less confusing.\n\n> \n> Thanks.\n> \n> >\n> >> 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n> >> -c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n> >> +c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n> >> $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n> >> $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n> >> d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\n\n-- \nDanh\n"},{"id":"400520","messageId":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.git.1592924655.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:45Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n\nPlease note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\nwhere pu is used:\n\n * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n for the English \"could\").\n * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n \"pack-objects updates\".\n\nChanges since v1:\n\n * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n patches).\n \n \n * Adjusted the quoting to match \n https://lore.kernel.org/git/e250f1bb100aca94c914f1b2d38a3849c2566aea.1592909867.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/\n .\n\nJohannes Schindelin (3):\n docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`\n tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced\n\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++--\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 +--\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 ++--\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 +++---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 +--\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 +++---\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 +-\n 14 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)\n\n\nbase-commit: c9c318d6bf26bcecdca5b6f31683b9d5887a83ee\nPublished-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-668%2Fdscho%2Faccommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v2\nFetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-668/dscho/accommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v2\nPull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/668\n\nRange-diff vs v1:\n\n 1: dc6f971290 ! 1: 35e3dafd6a docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n @@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: their trees themselves.\n patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top\n of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not\n - tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of\n -+ tell you if your patch is merged in 'seen' if you rebase on top of\n ++ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of\n master).\n \n * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages\n @@ Documentation/giteveryday.txt: $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>\n <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.\n Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`\n -and `pu` (potential updates).\n -+and `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer).\n ++and `seen`.\n <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others\n that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).\n <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.\n @@ Documentation/gitworkflows.txt: As a given feature goes from experimental to sta\n -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n - below).\n -+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n ++* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n + things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n + Branches\" below).\n \n 2: b792cb036c = 2: c2bcfdcb5b docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`\n 3: 17adbd5639 = 3: c8e356c02f tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced\n\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400521","messageId":"35e3dafd6a0b9bc2278933378f04cf13072ee298.1593010120.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:38Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:46Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs of \"What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2020, #04; Mon, 22)\", there is no\nlonger any `pu` branch, but a `seen` branch.\n\nWhile we technically do not even need to update the manual pages, it\nmakes sense to update them because they clearly talk about branches in\ngit.git.\n\nPlease note that in two instances, this patch not only updates the\nbranch name, but also the description \"(proposed updates)\".\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes have been added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 ++++----\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 ++++++++--------\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\nindex 427274df4d..d85c9b5143 100644\n--- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n@@ -1179,8 +1179,8 @@ look at the section below this one for some context.)\n [[after-approval]]\n === After Review Approval\n \n-The Git project has four integration branches: `pu`, `next`, `master`, and\n-`maint`. Your change will be placed into `pu` fairly early on by the maintainer\n+The Git project has four integration branches: `seen`, `next`, `master`, and\n+`maint`. Your change will be placed into `seen` fairly early on by the maintainer\n while it is still in the review process; from there, when it is ready for wider\n testing, it will be merged into `next`. Plenty of early testers use `next` and\n may report issues. Eventually, changes in `next` will make it to `master`,\ndiff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nindex ecf9438cf0..291b61e262 100644\n--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n base your work on the tip of the topic.\n \n * A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new\n- feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`,\n+ feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`,\n base your work on the tip of that topic.\n \n * Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should\n@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n into the series.\n \n * In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics\n- not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send\n+ not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and send\n out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to\n wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and\n rebase your work.\n@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n these parts should be based on their trees.\n \n To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent\n-master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n+master..seen` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n commit is the tip of the topic branch.\n \n [[separate-commits]]\n@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ help you find out who they are.\n and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.\n \n In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up\n-from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for\n+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for\n people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to\n their trees themselves.\n \n@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ their trees themselves.\n master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied\n patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top\n of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not\n- tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of\n+ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of\n master).\n \n * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\nindex 5b1909fdf4..45b6d8e633 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ refspec.\n * Using refspecs explicitly:\n +\n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git fetch origin +pu:pu maint:tmp\n+$ git fetch origin +seen:seen maint:tmp\n ------------------------------------------------\n +\n-This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `pu` and `tmp` in\n+This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `seen` and `tmp` in\n the local repository by fetching from the branches (respectively)\n-`pu` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n+`seen` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n +\n-The `pu` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n+The `seen` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n because it is prefixed with a plus sign; `tmp` will not be.\n \n * Peek at a remote's branch, without configuring the remote in your local\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\nindex 0a5c8b7d49..492e573856 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n-$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n+$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n-c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n+c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\ndiff --git a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\nindex 1bd919f92b..faba2ef088 100644\n--- a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n@@ -278,13 +278,13 @@ $ git am -3 -i -s ./+to-apply <4>\n $ compile/test\n $ git switch -c hold/linus && git am -3 -i -s ./+hold-linus <5>\n $ git switch topic/one && git rebase master <6>\n-$ git switch -C pu next <7>\n+$ git switch -C seen next <7>\n $ git merge topic/one topic/two && git merge hold/linus <8>\n $ git switch maint\n $ git cherry-pick master~4 <9>\n $ compile/test\n $ git tag -s -m \"GIT 0.99.9x\" v0.99.9x <10>\n-$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next pu <11>\n+$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next seen <11>\n do\n \tgit show-branch ko/$branch $branch <12>\n done\n@@ -294,14 +294,14 @@ $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>\n <1> see what you were in the middle of doing, if anything.\n <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.\n Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`\n-and `pu` (potential updates).\n+and `seen`.\n <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others\n that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).\n <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.\n <5> create topic branch as needed and apply, again with sign-offs.\n <6> rebase internal topic branch that has not been merged to the\n master or exposed as a part of a stable branch.\n-<7> restart `pu` every time from the next.\n+<7> restart `seen` every time from the next.\n <8> and bundle topic branches still cooking.\n <9> backport a critical fix.\n <10> create a signed tag.\n@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ repository at kernel.org, and looks like this:\n \tfetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/ko/*\n \tpush = refs/heads/master\n \tpush = refs/heads/next\n-\tpush = +refs/heads/pu\n+\tpush = +refs/heads/seen\n \tpush = refs/heads/maint\n ------------\n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\nindex abc0dc6bc7..0965b60884 100644\n--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also\n \n There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:\n \n-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n- below).\n+* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n+ Branches\" below).\n \n Each of the four branches is usually a direct descendant of the one\n above it.\n \n Conceptually, the feature enters at an unstable branch (usually 'next'\n-or 'pu'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n+or 'seen'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n considered stable enough.\n \n \n@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ If you make it (very) clear that this branch is going to be deleted\n right after the testing, you can even publish this branch, for example\n to give the testers a chance to work with it, or other developers a\n chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git`\n-has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'.\n+has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'seen'.\n \n \n Branch management for a release\n@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ This will not happen if the content of the branches was verified as\n described in the previous section.\n \n \n-Branch management for next and pu after a feature release\n+Branch management for next and seen after a feature release\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n \n After a feature release, the integration branch 'next' may optionally be\n@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ so.\n If you do this, then you should make a public announcement indicating\n that 'next' was rewound and rebuilt.\n \n-The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'pu'. A public\n-announcement is not necessary since 'pu' is a throw-away branch, as\n+The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'seen'. A public\n+announcement is not necessary since 'seen' is a throw-away branch, as\n described above.\n \n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\nindex 833652983f..fd480b8645 100644\n--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ $ git branch -r\n origin/man\n origin/master\n origin/next\n- origin/pu\n+ origin/seen\n origin/todo\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400522","messageId":"c2bcfdcb5bbd181f3c157ab9b6e8be8a70f6bce1.1593010120.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v2 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:39Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nThis patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have\nbeen added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change\nthem in hindsight.\n\nBut as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to\nGit's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the\nstatus quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the\nprovided information accordingly.\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes were added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n 4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\nindex 73be8b49f8..a67130debb 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n demonstrated to be regression free. New changes are tested\n in 'next' before merged to 'master'.\n \n- - 'pu' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n+ - 'seen' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'.\n \n - The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to\n@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n of the cycle.\n \n - Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all\n- of 'master'. 'pu' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n+ of 'master'. 'seen' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n is rebuilt directly on 'master'.\n \n - The tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than any\n@@ -229,12 +229,12 @@ by doing the following:\n series?)\n \n - Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere\n- between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n+ between 'master' and 'seen' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n \n The result is a script that lists topics to be merged in order to\n- rebuild 'pu' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n+ rebuild 'seen' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n later topics that should not be in 'jch' yet. Add a line that\n consists of '### match next' before the name of the first topic\n in the output that should be in 'jch' but not in 'next' yet.\n@@ -291,29 +291,29 @@ by doing the following:\n merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker;\n add it again to the appropriate place when it happens.\n \n- - Rebuild 'pu'.\n+ - Rebuild 'seen'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu'\n+ Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'seen'\n in the script. Then\n \n- $ git checkout -B pu jch\n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ git checkout -B seen jch\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with\n+ When all is well, clean up the redo-seen.sh script with\n \n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh -u\n \n Double check by running\n \n- $ git branch --no-merged pu\n+ $ git branch --no-merged seen\n \n to see there is no unexpected leftover topics.\n \n At this point, build-test the result for semantic conflicts, and\n if there are, prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see\n- appendix), and rebuild the 'pu' branch from scratch, starting at\n+ appendix), and rebuild the 'seen' branch from scratch, starting at\n the tip of 'jch'.\n \n - Update \"What's cooking\" message to review the updates to\n@@ -323,14 +323,14 @@ by doing the following:\n \n $ Meta/cook\n \n- This script inspects the history between master..pu, finds tips\n+ This script inspects the history between master..seen, finds tips\n of topic branches, compares what it found with the current\n contents in Meta/whats-cooking.txt, and updates that file.\n- Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..pu are\n+ Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..seen are\n added to the \"New topics\" section, topics listed in the file that\n- are no longer found in master..pu are moved to the \"Graduated to\n+ are no longer found in master..seen are moved to the \"Graduated to\n master\" section, and topics whose commits changed their states\n- (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated\n+ (e.g. used to be only in 'seen', now merged to 'next') are updated\n with change markers \"<<\" and \">>\".\n \n Look for lines enclosed in \"<<\" and \">>\"; they hold contents from\n@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ Observations\n Some observations to be made.\n \n * Each topic is tested individually, and also together with other\n- topics cooking first in 'pu', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n+ topics cooking first in 'seen', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'.\n \n * A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in\n@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ new use of the variable under its old name. When these two topics\n are merged together, the reference to the variable newly added by\n the latter topic will still use the old name in the result.\n \n-The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-pu\n+The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-seen\n scripts implements a crude but usable way to work this issue around.\n When the script merges branch $X, it checks if \"refs/merge-fix/$X\"\n exists, and if so, the effect of it is squashed into the result of\n@@ -431,14 +431,14 @@ commit that can be squashed into a result of mechanical merge to\n correct semantic conflicts.\n \n After finding that the result of merging branch \"ai/topic\" to an\n-integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say pu~4, check the\n+integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say seen~4, check the\n problematic merge out on a detached HEAD, edit the working tree to\n fix the semantic conflict, and make a separate commit to record the\n fix-up:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~4\n+ $ git checkout seen~4\n $ git show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check\n- Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu\n+ Merge branch 'ai/topic' to seen\n $ edit\n $ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a\n \n@@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ result:\n Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the\n merge:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n+ $ git checkout seen~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n $ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate\n- $ git diff pu~4\n+ $ git diff seen~4\n \n This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the\n resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the\n@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ branch needs this merge-fix is because another branch merged earlier\n to the integration branch changed the underlying assumption ai/topic\n branch made (e.g. ai/topic branch added a site to refer to a\n variable, while the other branch renamed that variable and adjusted\n-existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-pu) script\n+existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-seen) script\n to merge ai/topic branch before the other branch, then the above\n merge-fix should not be applied while merging ai/topic, but should\n instead be applied while merging the other branch. You would need\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\nindex 02cb5f758d..ece51ddddc 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Cc:\tPetr Baudis , Linus Torvalds \n Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree\n Date:\tSun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700\n Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the\n- public \"pu\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n+ public \"seen\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n the \"master\" branch, and how \"rebase\" works. Also discussed\n is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches\n upstream.\n@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Petr Baudis writes:\n > where Junio C Hamano told me that...\n >> Linus Torvalds writes:\n >>\n->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your \"pu\"\n->> > branch to the real branches.\n+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your\n+>> > \"seen\" branch to the real branches.\n >>\n > Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?\n --------------------------------------\n@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.\n I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core\n Git tools.\n \n-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I\n+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I\n wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of\n-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit\n+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit\n ancestry graph looked like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \n So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n \n After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \\\n \\---> master\n@@ -58,31 +58,31 @@ After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).\n The new master commit holds my documentation updates.\n \n-Now I have to deal with \"pu\" branch.\n+Now I have to deal with \"seen\" branch.\n \n This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when\n Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look\n-at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"pu\"\n+at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"seen\"\n branch being the \"contributor\" branch. Your work started at the\n tip of the \"maintainer\" branch some time ago, you made a lot of\n progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some\n other commits you do not have yet. And \"git rebase\" was written\n with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like\n-\"pu\". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you\n+\"seen\". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you\n eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily\n all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later\n operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward\n-your changes) \"pu\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n+your changes) \"seen\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n \n- $ git checkout pu\n- $ git rebase master pu\n+ $ git checkout seen\n+ $ git rebase master seen\n \n What this does is to pick all the commits since the current\n-branch (note that I now am on \"pu\" branch) forked from the\n+branch (note that I now am on \"seen\" branch) forked from the\n master branch, and forward port these changes.\n \n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n- \\ *\"pu\" head\n+ \\ *\"seen\" head\n \\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'\n \n The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and\n@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.\n \n Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file\n anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if\n-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"pu\", you\n+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"seen\", you\n can run \"git prune\" to get rid of those original three commits.\n \n While I am talking about \"git rebase\", I should talk about how\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\nindex 149508e13b..a3e5595a56 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ One of the changes I pulled into the 'master' branch turns out to\n break building Git with GCC 2.95. While they were well-intentioned\n portability fixes, keeping things working with gcc-2.95 was also\n important. Here is what I did to revert the change in the 'master'\n-branch and to adjust the 'pu' branch, using core Git tools and\n+branch and to adjust the 'seen' branch, using core Git tools and\n barebone Porcelain.\n \n First, prepare a throw-away branch in case I screw things up.\n@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ $ git diff master..revert-c99\n \n says nothing.\n \n-Then we rebase the 'pu' branch as usual.\n+Then we rebase the 'seen' branch as usual.\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git checkout pu\n-$ git tag pu-anchor pu\n+$ git checkout seen\n+$ git tag seen-anchor seen\n $ git rebase master\n * Applying: Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-The temporary tag 'pu-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n+The temporary tag 'seen-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n rebase' screws up. After this, I can do these for sanity check:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git diff pu-anchor..pu ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n+$ git diff seen-anchor..seen ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n $ make CC=gcc-2.95 clean test ;# make sure it fixed the breakage.\n $ make clean test ;# make sure it did not cause other breakage.\n ------------------------------------------------\n@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Everything is in the good order. I do not need the temporary branch\n or tag anymore, so remove them:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/pu-anchor\n+$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/seen-anchor\n $ git branch -d revert-c99\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n@@ -168,18 +168,18 @@ Committed merge 7fb9b7262a1d1e0a47bbfdcbbcf50ce0635d3f8f\n And the final repository status looks like this:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git show-branch --more=1 master pu rc\n+$ git show-branch --more=1 master seen rc\n ! [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n- ! [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ ! [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n * [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ---\n- + [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n- + [pu~1] More documentation updates.\n- + [pu~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n- + [pu~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n- + [pu~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n- + [pu~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n- + [pu~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n+ + [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ + [seen~1] More documentation updates.\n+ + [seen~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n+ + [seen~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n+ + [seen~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n+ + [seen~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n+ + [seen~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n - [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ++* [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n - [rc~1] Merge refs/heads/master from .\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\nindex 89821ec74f..151ee84ceb 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ allowed-groups, to describe which heads can be pushed into by\n whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n refs/heads/master junio\n- +refs/heads/pu junio\n+ +refs/heads/seen junio\n refs/heads/cogito$ pasky\n refs/heads/bw/.* linus\n refs/heads/tmp/.* .*\n@@ -187,6 +187,6 @@ whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n With this, Linus can push or create \"bw/penguin\" or \"bw/zebra\"\n or \"bw/panda\" branches, Pasky can do only \"cogito\", and JC can\n-do master and pu branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n-can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the pu record means\n+do master and \"seen\" branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n+can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the \"seen\" record means\n that JC can make non-fast-forward pushes on it.\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400523","messageId":"c8e356c02f95c48fa30711f3f89133b6c05c2867.1593010120.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v2 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:40Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T14:48:50Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs our test suite partially reflects how we work in the Git project, it\nis natural that the branch name `pu` was used in a couple places.\n\nSince that branch was renamed to `seen`, let's use the new name\nconsistently.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 ++++----\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 ++++++++--------\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 ++--\n 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh\nindex dda81b7d07..8d62edd98b 100755\n--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh\n+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh\n@@ -988,7 +988,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t+refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/scratch/maint\n \t+refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \t+refs/heads/t/topic:refs/remotes/scratch/t/topic\n \tEOF\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.setup-ffonly &&\n@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.respect-ffonly &&\n \trefs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \tEOF\n \n \tgit clone .git/ setbranches &&\n@@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.replace &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu t/topic &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen t/topic &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.add-two &&\n \n@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.setup-ffonly &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.respect-ffonly\n \t) &&\ndiff --git a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\nindex 9c6218f568..36ad20a849 100755\n--- a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n+++ b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n@@ -747,42 +747,42 @@ test_expect_success 'deletion of a non-existent ref alone does trigger post-rece\n '\n \n test_expect_success 'mixed ref updates, deletes, invalid deletes trigger hooks with correct input' '\n-\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/pu &&\n+\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/seen &&\n \torgmaster=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tnewmaster=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \torgnext=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/next) &&\n \tnewnext=$ZERO_OID &&\n-\torgpu=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/pu) &&\n-\tnewpu=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n+\torgseen=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/seen) &&\n+\tnewseen=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tgit push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master \\\n-\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/pu :refs/heads/next \\\n+\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/seen :refs/heads/next \\\n \t :refs/heads/nonexistent &&\n \t(\n \t\tcd testrepo/.git &&\n \t\tcat >pre-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\t$ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/nonexistent\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master $orgmaster $newmaster\n \t\trefs/heads/next $orgnext $newnext\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu $orgpu $newpu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen $orgseen $newseen\n \t\trefs/heads/nonexistent $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master\n \t\trefs/heads/next\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\ttest_cmp pre-receive.expect pre-receive.actual &&\ndiff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh\nindex 3c44af6940..c824608881 100755\n--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh\n+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh\n@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ test_expect_success '__gitcomp - prefix' '\n '\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp - suffix' '\n-\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next pu\" \"branch.\" \\\n+\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next seen\" \"branch.\" \\\n \t\t\"ma\" \".\" <<-\\EOF\n \tbranch.master.Z\n \tbranch.maint.Z\n@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ read -r -d \"\" refs <<-\\EOF\n maint\n master\n next\n-pu\n+seen\n EOF\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp_nl - trailing space' '\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400524","messageId":"20200624150747.GA141904@generichostname","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"35e3dafd6a0b9bc2278933378f04cf13072ee298.1593010120.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Denton Liu","fromEmail":"liu.denton@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T15:07:47Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T15:07:59Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"liu.denton@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9620836?v=4"},"body":"Hi Dscho,\n\nOn Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n> index abc0dc6bc7..0965b60884 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n> +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n> @@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also\n> \n> There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:\n> \n> -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n> - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n> - below).\n> +* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n> + things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n> + Branches\" below).\n\nTiny nit: we should use sq instead of backticks to match the style of\nthe rest of the document.\n\n-Denton\n"},{"id":"400525","messageId":"20200624152409.GA143253@generichostname","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Denton Liu","fromEmail":"liu.denton@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T15:24:09Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T15:24:15Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"liu.denton@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9620836?v=4"},"body":"Hi Dscho,\n\nOn Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> Changes since v1:\n> \n> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n> patches).\n\nOut of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?\nI understand there are some very rare edge-cases where it might be\nappropriate to base patches on `next` (where the series based on\nmany, many other topics) but I'm not sure if I know of any situations\nwhere it'd make sense to base topics on `seen`.\n\nThanks,\n\nDenton\n"},{"id":"400527","messageId":"xmqqtuz08ofa.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T15:38:01Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T15:38:11Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget\" \nwrites:\n\n> Changes since v1:\n>\n> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n> patches).\n\nThanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on\nthe same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a\nmaintenance release if we are going to issue one).\n\n> * Adjusted the quoting to match \n> https://lore.kernel.org/git/e250f1bb100aca94c914f1b2d38a3849c2566aea.1592909867.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/\n\nI know I mentioned it and I think the patch to SubmittingPatches\ndoes improve by doing `seen` because it matches the way how the\nnearby `git pull --rebase` is quoted.\n\nBut I am not sure about the patch to gitworkflows.txt, where the\ntext around the new `seen` mention 'master' and 'next'. I think\nyour v1 was more (locally) consistent.\n\nI am on the fence to the change to giteveryday.txt, where `pu` got\nchanged to `seen`; your v1 had \"(patches seen by the maintainer)\" as\nan explanation after the `seen`. I guess it is inconsistent to\nexplain only why `seen` is `seen` without doing the same for `next`,\nso I would say v2 is an improvement over v1.\n\nIn short,\n\n> 1: dc6f971290 ! 1: 35e3dafd6a docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n> @@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: their trees themselves.\n> patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top\n> of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not\n> - tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of\n> -+ tell you if your patch is merged in 'seen' if you rebase on top of\n> ++ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of\n> master).\n\nGood.\n\n> * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages\n> @@ Documentation/giteveryday.txt: $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>\n> <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.\n> Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`\n> -and `pu` (potential updates).\n> -+and `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer).\n> ++and `seen`.\n\nProbably good.\n\n> <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others\n> that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).\n> <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.\n> @@ Documentation/gitworkflows.txt: As a given feature goes from experimental to sta\n> -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n> - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n> - below).\n> -+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n> ++* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n\nNot---'seen' was more consistent relative to the surrounding text.\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"400528","messageId":"xmqqpn9o8o7p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"20200624152409.GA143253@generichostname","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T15:42:34Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T15:42:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Denton Liu writes:\n\n> Hi Dscho,\n>\n> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n>> Changes since v1:\n>> \n>> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n>> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n>> patches).\n>\n> Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?\n\nNever. Even bulding on top of 'next' is discouraged. \n\nEither \"prepare a merge on top of 'master' with all the topics in\nflight that you depend on, and base your series on top of it,\nrisking that any one of these topics can take your series hostage\"\nor \"wait until these topics graduate and then base your topic on\n'master'\". I'd vastly prefer the latter, as it would become\ncumbersome if one of the topics you base your series on gets\nrerolled.\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"400546","messageId":"xmqqd05o75so.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqqtuz08ofa.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T17:05:43Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T17:05:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n\n> \"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget\" \n> writes:\n>\n>> Changes since v1:\n>>\n>> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n>> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n>> patches).\n>\n> Thanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on\n> the same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a\n> maintenance release if we are going to issue one).\n\nBy the way, I find myself typing 'pu' all the time, even though I've\nbeen using 'seen' for almost 48 hours by now. My private tooling\nall have been updated to work with 'seen', but it seems that it\ntakes time to retrain muscle memory. I'll see if I can fully adjust\nbefore the next week starts.\n\nI do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'\nand now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for\nusing you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to\ngauge the cost.\n\n"},{"id":"400547","messageId":"20200624172425.GA152115@generichostname","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqqd05o75so.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Denton Liu","fromEmail":"liu.denton@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T17:24:25Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T17:24:31Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"liu.denton@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9620836?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'\n> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for\n> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to\n> gauge the cost.\n\nHeh, I was wondering if you had any ulterior motives ;)\n\nSince we're on the topic of the cost of renaming branches, I was reading\na reply from you back in 2011 about how HEAD symrefs are the only valid\nones[0]. I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then but\nperhaps we could officially expand the scope of symrefs to allow users\nto essentially alias branches? It might reduce the cost of performing\nbranch renames by having a backwards compatible option.\n\n[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/7vsjvpq0jk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/\n"},{"id":"400548","messageId":"xmqq8sgc749a.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"20200624172425.GA152115@generichostname","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T17:38:57Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T17:39:04Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Denton Liu writes:\n\n> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'\n>> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for\n>> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to\n>> gauge the cost.\n>\n> Heh, I was wondering if you had any ulterior motives ;)\n>\n> Since we're on the topic of the cost of renaming branches, I was reading\n> a reply from you back in 2011 about how HEAD symrefs are the only valid\n> ones[0]. I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then but\n> perhaps we could officially expand the scope of symrefs to allow users\n> to essentially alias branches? It might reduce the cost of performing\n> branch renames by having a backwards compatible option.\n\nIt would be one way to transition, adding a symref in refs/heads/pu\npointing at refs/heads/seen, but that unfortunately defeats the\nwhole point of the rename, to make room for pu/ hierarchy for\ncontributors with names, in which P and U appear as the first and\nthe last capital letters, respectively.\n\nSo, no, that won't be a solution, unfortunately.\n\nI have an unused branch 'pu/nomore' in the primary repository I work\nin, so that my accidental \"git checkout -B pu jch\" will fail, which\nalso takes advantage of this D/F conflict preventing a ref from\nbeing created.\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"400579","messageId":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v2.git.1593010120.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-25T12:18:56Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-25T12:19:04Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n\nPlease note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\nwhere pu is used:\n\n * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n for the English \"could\").\n * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n \"pack-objects updates\".\n\nChanges since v2:\n\n * One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.\n \n \n * Rebased onto maint (no merge conflicts, so it does not actually change\n anything).\n \n \n\nChanges since v1:\n\n * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n patches).\n \n \n * Adjusted the quoting to match \n https://lore.kernel.org/git/e250f1bb100aca94c914f1b2d38a3849c2566aea.1592909867.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/\n .\n\nJohannes Schindelin (3):\n docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`\n tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced\n\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++--\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 +--\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 +-\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 ++--\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 +++---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 +--\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 +++---\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 +-\n 14 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)\n\n\nbase-commit: af6b65d45ef179ed52087e80cb089f6b2349f4ec\nPublished-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-668%2Fdscho%2Faccommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v3\nFetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-668/dscho/accommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v3\nPull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/668\n\nRange-diff vs v2:\n\n 1: 35e3dafd6a ! 1: 13e03e0e65 docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`\n @@ Documentation/gitworkflows.txt: As a given feature goes from experimental to sta\n -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n - below).\n -+* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n ++* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n + things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n + Branches\" below).\n \n 2: c2bcfdcb5b = 2: 13f3501c84 docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`\n 3: c8e356c02f = 3: e38ade2ee0 tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced\n\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400580","messageId":"13e03e0e65c0ba9e0e791e545a1a15694cb49689.1593087539.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v3 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-25T12:18:57Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-25T12:19:06Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs of \"What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2020, #04; Mon, 22)\", there is no\nlonger any `pu` branch, but a `seen` branch.\n\nWhile we technically do not even need to update the manual pages, it\nmakes sense to update them because they clearly talk about branches in\ngit.git.\n\nPlease note that in two instances, this patch not only updates the\nbranch name, but also the description \"(proposed updates)\".\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes have been added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 ++++----\n Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 ++--\n Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 +++++-----\n Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 ++++++++--------\n Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-\n 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\nindex 427274df4d..d85c9b5143 100644\n--- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt\n@@ -1179,8 +1179,8 @@ look at the section below this one for some context.)\n [[after-approval]]\n === After Review Approval\n \n-The Git project has four integration branches: `pu`, `next`, `master`, and\n-`maint`. Your change will be placed into `pu` fairly early on by the maintainer\n+The Git project has four integration branches: `seen`, `next`, `master`, and\n+`maint`. Your change will be placed into `seen` fairly early on by the maintainer\n while it is still in the review process; from there, when it is ready for wider\n testing, it will be merged into `next`. Plenty of early testers use `next` and\n may report issues. Eventually, changes in `next` will make it to `master`,\ndiff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nindex 4515cab519..c610a320d1 100644\n--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n base your work on the tip of the topic.\n \n * A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new\n- feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`,\n+ feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`,\n base your work on the tip of that topic.\n \n * Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should\n@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n into the series.\n \n * In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics\n- not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send\n+ not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and send\n out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to\n wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and\n rebase your work.\n@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ change is relevant to.\n these parts should be based on their trees.\n \n To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent\n-master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n+master..seen` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this\n commit is the tip of the topic branch.\n \n [[separate-commits]]\n@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ help you find out who they are.\n and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.\n \n In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up\n-from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for\n+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for\n people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to\n their trees themselves.\n \n@@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ their trees themselves.\n master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied\n patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top\n of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not\n- tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of\n+ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of\n master).\n \n * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\nindex 5b1909fdf4..45b6d8e633 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt\n@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ refspec.\n * Using refspecs explicitly:\n +\n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git fetch origin +pu:pu maint:tmp\n+$ git fetch origin +seen:seen maint:tmp\n ------------------------------------------------\n +\n-This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `pu` and `tmp` in\n+This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `seen` and `tmp` in\n the local repository by fetching from the branches (respectively)\n-`pu` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n+`seen` and `maint` from the remote repository.\n +\n-The `pu` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n+The `seen` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,\n because it is prefixed with a plus sign; `tmp` will not be.\n \n * Peek at a remote's branch, without configuring the remote in your local\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\nindex 0a5c8b7d49..492e573856 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt\n@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41\trefs/tags/v0.99.1\n 7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e\trefs/tags/v0.99.3\n c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441\trefs/tags/v0.99.2\n 0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250\trefs/tags/junio-gpg-pub\n-$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc\n+$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc\n 5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740\trefs/heads/master\n-c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/pu\n+c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061\trefs/heads/seen\n $ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git\n $ git ls-remote --tags korg v\\*\n d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a\trefs/tags/v0.99\ndiff --git a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\nindex 1bd919f92b..faba2ef088 100644\n--- a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt\n@@ -278,13 +278,13 @@ $ git am -3 -i -s ./+to-apply <4>\n $ compile/test\n $ git switch -c hold/linus && git am -3 -i -s ./+hold-linus <5>\n $ git switch topic/one && git rebase master <6>\n-$ git switch -C pu next <7>\n+$ git switch -C seen next <7>\n $ git merge topic/one topic/two && git merge hold/linus <8>\n $ git switch maint\n $ git cherry-pick master~4 <9>\n $ compile/test\n $ git tag -s -m \"GIT 0.99.9x\" v0.99.9x <10>\n-$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next pu <11>\n+$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next seen <11>\n do\n \tgit show-branch ko/$branch $branch <12>\n done\n@@ -294,14 +294,14 @@ $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>\n <1> see what you were in the middle of doing, if anything.\n <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.\n Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`\n-and `pu` (potential updates).\n+and `seen`.\n <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others\n that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).\n <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.\n <5> create topic branch as needed and apply, again with sign-offs.\n <6> rebase internal topic branch that has not been merged to the\n master or exposed as a part of a stable branch.\n-<7> restart `pu` every time from the next.\n+<7> restart `seen` every time from the next.\n <8> and bundle topic branches still cooking.\n <9> backport a critical fix.\n <10> create a signed tag.\n@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ repository at kernel.org, and looks like this:\n \tfetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/ko/*\n \tpush = refs/heads/master\n \tpush = refs/heads/next\n-\tpush = +refs/heads/pu\n+\tpush = +refs/heads/seen\n \tpush = refs/heads/maint\n ------------\n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\nindex abc0dc6bc7..2db7ba7842 100644\n--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt\n@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also\n \n There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:\n \n-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are\n- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration Branches\"\n- below).\n+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for\n+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see \"Integration\n+ Branches\" below).\n \n Each of the four branches is usually a direct descendant of the one\n above it.\n \n Conceptually, the feature enters at an unstable branch (usually 'next'\n-or 'pu'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n+or 'seen'), and \"graduates\" to 'master' for the next release once it is\n considered stable enough.\n \n \n@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ If you make it (very) clear that this branch is going to be deleted\n right after the testing, you can even publish this branch, for example\n to give the testers a chance to work with it, or other developers a\n chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git`\n-has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'.\n+has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'seen'.\n \n \n Branch management for a release\n@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ This will not happen if the content of the branches was verified as\n described in the previous section.\n \n \n-Branch management for next and pu after a feature release\n+Branch management for next and seen after a feature release\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n \n After a feature release, the integration branch 'next' may optionally be\n@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ so.\n If you do this, then you should make a public announcement indicating\n that 'next' was rewound and rebuilt.\n \n-The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'pu'. A public\n-announcement is not necessary since 'pu' is a throw-away branch, as\n+The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'seen'. A public\n+announcement is not necessary since 'seen' is a throw-away branch, as\n described above.\n \n \ndiff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\nindex 833652983f..fd480b8645 100644\n--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt\n@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ $ git branch -r\n origin/man\n origin/master\n origin/next\n- origin/pu\n+ origin/seen\n origin/todo\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400581","messageId":"e38ade2ee060bac1e92869de1121d1e79d9d6a56.1593087539.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v3 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-25T12:18:59Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-25T12:19:08Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nAs our test suite partially reflects how we work in the Git project, it\nis natural that the branch name `pu` was used in a couple places.\n\nSince that branch was renamed to `seen`, let's use the new name\nconsistently.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 ++++----\n t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 ++++++++--------\n t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 ++--\n 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh\nindex dda81b7d07..8d62edd98b 100755\n--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh\n+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh\n@@ -988,7 +988,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t+refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/scratch/maint\n \t+refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \t+refs/heads/t/topic:refs/remotes/scratch/t/topic\n \tEOF\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.setup-ffonly &&\n@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \tsort <<-\\EOF >expect.respect-ffonly &&\n \trefs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master\n \t+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next\n-\t+refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu\n+\t+refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen\n \tEOF\n \n \tgit clone .git/ setbranches &&\n@@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.replace &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu t/topic &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen t/topic &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.add-two &&\n \n@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.setup-ffonly &&\n \n-\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch pu &&\n+\t\tgit remote set-branches --add scratch seen &&\n \t\tgit config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&\n \t\tsort ../actual.respect-ffonly\n \t) &&\ndiff --git a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\nindex 9ff041a093..12ae04c1fe 100755\n--- a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n+++ b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh\n@@ -747,42 +747,42 @@ test_expect_success 'deletion of a non-existent ref alone does trigger post-rece\n '\n \n test_expect_success 'mixed ref updates, deletes, invalid deletes trigger hooks with correct input' '\n-\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/pu &&\n+\tmk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/seen &&\n \torgmaster=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tnewmaster=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \torgnext=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/next) &&\n \tnewnext=$ZERO_OID &&\n-\torgpu=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/pu) &&\n-\tnewpu=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n+\torgseen=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/seen) &&\n+\tnewseen=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&\n \tgit push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master \\\n-\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/pu :refs/heads/next \\\n+\t refs/heads/master:refs/heads/seen :refs/heads/next \\\n \t :refs/heads/nonexistent &&\n \t(\n \t\tcd testrepo/.git &&\n \t\tcat >pre-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\t$ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/nonexistent\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master $orgmaster $newmaster\n \t\trefs/heads/next $orgnext $newnext\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu $orgpu $newpu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen $orgseen $newseen\n \t\trefs/heads/nonexistent $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-receive.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\t$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master\n \t\t$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next\n-\t\t$orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu\n+\t\t$orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\tcat >post-update.expect <<-EOF &&\n \t\trefs/heads/master\n \t\trefs/heads/next\n-\t\trefs/heads/pu\n+\t\trefs/heads/seen\n \t\tEOF\n \n \t\ttest_cmp pre-receive.expect pre-receive.actual &&\ndiff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh\nindex 5505e5aa24..3fef499322 100755\n--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh\n+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh\n@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ test_expect_success '__gitcomp - prefix' '\n '\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp - suffix' '\n-\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next pu\" \"branch.\" \\\n+\ttest_gitcomp \"branch.me\" \"master maint next seen\" \"branch.\" \\\n \t\t\"ma\" \".\" <<-\\EOF\n \tbranch.master.Z\n \tbranch.maint.Z\n@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ read -r -d \"\" refs <<-\\EOF\n maint\n master\n next\n-pu\n+seen\n EOF\n \n test_expect_success '__gitcomp_nl - trailing space' '\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n"},{"id":"400582","messageId":"13f3501c84a078426478fba45df7a145342380a8.1593087539.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH v3 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget","fromEmail":"gitgitgadget@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-25T12:18:58Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-25T12:19:09Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"From: Johannes Schindelin \n\nThis patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have\nbeen added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change\nthem in hindsight.\n\nBut as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to\nGit's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the\nstatus quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the\nprovided information accordingly.\n\nWhere appropriate, quotes were added for readability.\n\nSigned-off-by: Johannes Schindelin \n---\n Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------\n .../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------\n Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--\n 4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\nindex ca4378740c..3c3030bfd5 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt\n@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n demonstrated to be regression free. New changes are tested\n in 'next' before merged to 'master'.\n \n- - 'pu' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n+ - 'seen' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do\n not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'.\n \n - The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to\n@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.\n of the cycle.\n \n - Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all\n- of 'master'. 'pu' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n+ of 'master'. 'seen' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but\n is rebuilt directly on 'master'.\n \n - The tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than any\n@@ -211,12 +211,12 @@ by doing the following:\n series?)\n \n - Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere\n- between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n+ between 'master' and 'seen' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh\n \n The result is a script that lists topics to be merged in order to\n- rebuild 'pu' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n+ rebuild 'seen' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove\n later topics that should not be in 'jch' yet. Add a line that\n consists of '### match next' before the name of the first topic\n in the output that should be in 'jch' but not in 'next' yet.\n@@ -273,29 +273,29 @@ by doing the following:\n merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker;\n add it again to the appropriate place when it happens.\n \n- - Rebuild 'pu'.\n+ - Rebuild 'seen'.\n \n- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu'\n+ Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'seen'\n in the script. Then\n \n- $ git checkout -B pu jch\n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh\n+ $ git checkout -B seen jch\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh\n \n- When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with\n+ When all is well, clean up the redo-seen.sh script with\n \n- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u\n+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh -u\n \n Double check by running\n \n- $ git branch --no-merged pu\n+ $ git branch --no-merged seen\n \n to see there is no unexpected leftover topics.\n \n At this point, build-test the result for semantic conflicts, and\n if there are, prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see\n- appendix), and rebuild the 'pu' branch from scratch, starting at\n+ appendix), and rebuild the 'seen' branch from scratch, starting at\n the tip of 'jch'.\n \n - Update \"What's cooking\" message to review the updates to\n@@ -305,14 +305,14 @@ by doing the following:\n \n $ Meta/cook\n \n- This script inspects the history between master..pu, finds tips\n+ This script inspects the history between master..seen, finds tips\n of topic branches, compares what it found with the current\n contents in Meta/whats-cooking.txt, and updates that file.\n- Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..pu are\n+ Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..seen are\n added to the \"New topics\" section, topics listed in the file that\n- are no longer found in master..pu are moved to the \"Graduated to\n+ are no longer found in master..seen are moved to the \"Graduated to\n master\" section, and topics whose commits changed their states\n- (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated\n+ (e.g. used to be only in 'seen', now merged to 'next') are updated\n with change markers \"<<\" and \">>\".\n \n Look for lines enclosed in \"<<\" and \">>\"; they hold contents from\n@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ Observations\n Some observations to be made.\n \n * Each topic is tested individually, and also together with other\n- topics cooking first in 'pu', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n+ topics cooking first in 'seen', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.\n Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'.\n \n * A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in\n@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ new use of the variable under its old name. When these two topics\n are merged together, the reference to the variable newly added by\n the latter topic will still use the old name in the result.\n \n-The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-pu\n+The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-seen\n scripts implements a crude but usable way to work this issue around.\n When the script merges branch $X, it checks if \"refs/merge-fix/$X\"\n exists, and if so, the effect of it is squashed into the result of\n@@ -405,14 +405,14 @@ commit that can be squashed into a result of mechanical merge to\n correct semantic conflicts.\n \n After finding that the result of merging branch \"ai/topic\" to an\n-integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say pu~4, check the\n+integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say seen~4, check the\n problematic merge out on a detached HEAD, edit the working tree to\n fix the semantic conflict, and make a separate commit to record the\n fix-up:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~4\n+ $ git checkout seen~4\n $ git show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check\n- Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu\n+ Merge branch 'ai/topic' to seen\n $ edit\n $ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a\n \n@@ -424,9 +424,9 @@ result:\n Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the\n merge:\n \n- $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n+ $ git checkout seen~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge\n $ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate\n- $ git diff pu~4\n+ $ git diff seen~4\n \n This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the\n resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the\n@@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ branch needs this merge-fix is because another branch merged earlier\n to the integration branch changed the underlying assumption ai/topic\n branch made (e.g. ai/topic branch added a site to refer to a\n variable, while the other branch renamed that variable and adjusted\n-existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-pu) script\n+existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-seen) script\n to merge ai/topic branch before the other branch, then the above\n merge-fix should not be applied while merging ai/topic, but should\n instead be applied while merging the other branch. You would need\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\nindex 02cb5f758d..ece51ddddc 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt\n@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Cc:\tPetr Baudis , Linus Torvalds \n Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree\n Date:\tSun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700\n Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the\n- public \"pu\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n+ public \"seen\" branch using the core Git tools when he updates\n the \"master\" branch, and how \"rebase\" works. Also discussed\n is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches\n upstream.\n@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Petr Baudis writes:\n > where Junio C Hamano told me that...\n >> Linus Torvalds writes:\n >>\n->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your \"pu\"\n->> > branch to the real branches.\n+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your\n+>> > \"seen\" branch to the real branches.\n >>\n > Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?\n --------------------------------------\n@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.\n I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core\n Git tools.\n \n-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I\n+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I\n wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of\n-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit\n+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit\n ancestry graph looked like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \n So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:\n \n After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n \n- *\"pu\" head\n+ *\"seen\" head\n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n \\\n \\---> master\n@@ -58,31 +58,31 @@ After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:\n The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).\n The new master commit holds my documentation updates.\n \n-Now I have to deal with \"pu\" branch.\n+Now I have to deal with \"seen\" branch.\n \n This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when\n Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look\n-at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"pu\"\n+at \"master\" branch being the \"maintainer\" branch, and \"seen\"\n branch being the \"contributor\" branch. Your work started at the\n tip of the \"maintainer\" branch some time ago, you made a lot of\n progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some\n other commits you do not have yet. And \"git rebase\" was written\n with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like\n-\"pu\". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you\n+\"seen\". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you\n eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily\n all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later\n operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward\n-your changes) \"pu\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n+your changes) \"seen\" rather than merge. So I ran \"git rebase\":\n \n- $ git checkout pu\n- $ git rebase master pu\n+ $ git checkout seen\n+ $ git rebase master seen\n \n What this does is to pick all the commits since the current\n-branch (note that I now am on \"pu\" branch) forked from the\n+branch (note that I now am on \"seen\" branch) forked from the\n master branch, and forward port these changes.\n \n master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3\n- \\ *\"pu\" head\n+ \\ *\"seen\" head\n \\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'\n \n The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and\n@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.\n \n Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file\n anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if\n-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"pu\", you\n+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing \"seen\", you\n can run \"git prune\" to get rid of those original three commits.\n \n While I am talking about \"git rebase\", I should talk about how\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\nindex 149508e13b..a3e5595a56 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt\n@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ One of the changes I pulled into the 'master' branch turns out to\n break building Git with GCC 2.95. While they were well-intentioned\n portability fixes, keeping things working with gcc-2.95 was also\n important. Here is what I did to revert the change in the 'master'\n-branch and to adjust the 'pu' branch, using core Git tools and\n+branch and to adjust the 'seen' branch, using core Git tools and\n barebone Porcelain.\n \n First, prepare a throw-away branch in case I screw things up.\n@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ $ git diff master..revert-c99\n \n says nothing.\n \n-Then we rebase the 'pu' branch as usual.\n+Then we rebase the 'seen' branch as usual.\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git checkout pu\n-$ git tag pu-anchor pu\n+$ git checkout seen\n+$ git tag seen-anchor seen\n $ git rebase master\n * Applying: Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n-The temporary tag 'pu-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n+The temporary tag 'seen-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git\n rebase' screws up. After this, I can do these for sanity check:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git diff pu-anchor..pu ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n+$ git diff seen-anchor..seen ;# make sure we got the master fix.\n $ make CC=gcc-2.95 clean test ;# make sure it fixed the breakage.\n $ make clean test ;# make sure it did not cause other breakage.\n ------------------------------------------------\n@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Everything is in the good order. I do not need the temporary branch\n or tag anymore, so remove them:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/pu-anchor\n+$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/seen-anchor\n $ git branch -d revert-c99\n ------------------------------------------------\n \n@@ -168,18 +168,18 @@ Committed merge 7fb9b7262a1d1e0a47bbfdcbbcf50ce0635d3f8f\n And the final repository status looks like this:\n \n ------------------------------------------------\n-$ git show-branch --more=1 master pu rc\n+$ git show-branch --more=1 master seen rc\n ! [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n- ! [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ ! [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n * [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ---\n- + [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n- + [pu~1] More documentation updates.\n- + [pu~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n- + [pu~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n- + [pu~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n- + [pu~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n- + [pu~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n+ + [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.\n+ + [seen~1] More documentation updates.\n+ + [seen~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.\n+ + [seen~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates\n+ + [seen~4] Document \"git cherry-pick\" and \"git revert\"\n+ + [seen~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.\n+ + [seen~6] Redo \"revert\" using three-way merge machinery.\n - [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .\n ++* [master] Revert \"Replace zero-length array decls with [].\"\n - [rc~1] Merge refs/heads/master from .\ndiff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\nindex 89821ec74f..151ee84ceb 100644\n--- a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt\n@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ allowed-groups, to describe which heads can be pushed into by\n whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n refs/heads/master junio\n- +refs/heads/pu junio\n+ +refs/heads/seen junio\n refs/heads/cogito$ pasky\n refs/heads/bw/.* linus\n refs/heads/tmp/.* .*\n@@ -187,6 +187,6 @@ whom. The format of each file would look like this:\n \n With this, Linus can push or create \"bw/penguin\" or \"bw/zebra\"\n or \"bw/panda\" branches, Pasky can do only \"cogito\", and JC can\n-do master and pu branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n-can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the pu record means\n+do master and \"seen\" branches and make versioned tags. And anybody\n+can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the \"seen\" record means\n that JC can make non-fast-forward pushes on it.\n-- \ngitgitgadget\n\n"},{"id":"400615","messageId":"xmqq366j5d57.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-25T16:22:12Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-25T16:22:22Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget\" \nwrites:\n\n> This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n>\n> Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\n> where pu is used:\n>\n> * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n> English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n> for the English \"could\").\n> * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n> \"pack-objects updates\".\n>\n> Changes since v2:\n>\n> * One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.\n\nThanks for being thorough. \n\nYou could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks\ngood to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one\nroundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so\nbad, either ;-)\n\nWill replace.\n\n"},{"id":"400660","messageId":"c08504e9-5067-221b-819c-adce262c7394@gmail.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"pull.668.v3.git.1593087539.gitgitgadget@gmail.com","subject":"Update ProGit for pu -> seen change? (was Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen)","fromName":"Kaartic Sivaraam","fromEmail":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-26T09:06:12Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-26T09:06:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12448084?v=4"},"body":"On 25-06-2020 17:48, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n> \n> Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\n> where pu is used:\n> \n\nThis reminds me. The ProGit book references the `pu` branch in several\nplaces in the text and images IIRC. Is it fine to change them now?\nWould it be premature?\n\n> * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n> English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n> for the English \"could\").\n> * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n> \"pack-objects updates\".\n\n-- \nSivaraam\n"},{"id":"400810","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291538500.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqqpn9o8o7p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-29T13:40:57Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-30T13:30:09Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Denton Liu writes:\n>\n> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:\n> >> Changes since v1:\n> >>\n> >> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n> >> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n> >> patches).\n> >\n> > Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?\n>\n> Never. Even bulding on top of 'next' is discouraged.\n>\n> Either \"prepare a merge on top of 'master' with all the topics in\n> flight that you depend on, and base your series on top of it,\n> risking that any one of these topics can take your series hostage\"\n> or \"wait until these topics graduate and then base your topic on\n> 'master'\". I'd vastly prefer the latter, as it would become\n> cumbersome if one of the topics you base your series on gets\n> rerolled.\n\nI recall having had to base a patch on `seen` (née `pu`) because it\nwould otherwise have needed \"two base branches\". In another instance, I\nmade a patch to fix incorrectly-resolved merge conflicts.\n\nThere _are_ occasions when you want to base your patch on `seen`,\nadmittedly not very common occasions.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"400811","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291541290.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqqd05o75so.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-29T14:05:54Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-30T13:55:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nOn Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Junio C Hamano writes:\n>\n> > \"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget\" \n> > writes:\n> >\n> >> Changes since v1:\n> >>\n> >> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust\n> >> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these\n> >> patches).\n> >\n> > Thanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on\n> > the same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a\n> > maintenance release if we are going to issue one).\n>\n> By the way, I find myself typing 'pu' all the time, even though I've\n> been using 'seen' for almost 48 hours by now. My private tooling\n> all have been updated to work with 'seen', but it seems that it\n> takes time to retrain muscle memory. I'll see if I can fully adjust\n> before the next week starts.\n\nI do understand the issue. If you're as addicted to tab-completion as I\nam, something like `pulse` might have made that transition.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\n> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'\n> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for\n> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to\n> gauge the cost.\n\n"},{"id":"400812","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291606060.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqq366j5d57.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-29T14:07:14Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-30T13:56:29Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nOn Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> \"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget\" \n> writes:\n>\n> > This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.\n> >\n> > Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places\n> > where pu is used:\n> >\n> > * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not\n> > English (as in \"gpg n'a pas pu signer les données\" where \"pu\" is French\n> > for the English \"could\").\n> > * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for\n> > \"pack-objects updates\".\n> >\n> > Changes since v2:\n> >\n> > * One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.\n>\n> Thanks for being thorough.\n>\n> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks\n> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one\n> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so\n> bad, either ;-)\n\nTo be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to\njust submit a new iteration. In fact, I did not even see your fixup until\nI read your mail.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\n>\n> Will replace.\n>\n>\n"},{"id":"400834","messageId":"xmqqpn9gee2l.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291606060.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-30T16:03:14Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-30T16:03:27Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin writes:\n\n>> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks\n>> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one\n>> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so\n>> bad, either ;-)\n>\n> To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to\n> just submit a new iteration.\n\nI do not mind seeing a new iteration that gives easier time for\nothers to comment on the version that is closer to the final than\nthe previous round. The offer was only for contributors who find\nit easier to just say \"yeah, I am happy with that change\" than\nsubmitting a new round.\n\n> In fact, I did not even see your fixup until I read your mail.\n\nThis I actually would mind a bit more. The reason why I publish\n'seen' is to make it easier for authors of individual topics how\ntheir work would play with other topics in flight, and it diminishes\nthe value of it if contributors do not pay attention to what is\nqueued there. I expect contributors to fetch and look at what is\nqueued in origin/seen.\n\nThere may be evil merges that reveal subtle interactions between\ntopics, some of which may involve the topic an author may care\nabout. There may be fixups for problems that were not found during\nreview but only found during the integration process. I try to\ncommunicate these back on the list when possible, but the thing is,\na day does not have sufficient number of minutes for me to always do\nso.\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"400888","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2007011241560.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53742","inReplyTo":"xmqqpn9gee2l.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-07-01T10:42:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-07-01T10:42:52Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nOn Tue, 30 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin writes:\n>\n> >> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks\n> >> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one\n> >> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so\n> >> bad, either ;-)\n> >\n> > To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to\n> > just submit a new iteration.\n>\n> I do not mind seeing a new iteration that gives easier time for\n> others to comment on the version that is closer to the final than\n> the previous round. The offer was only for contributors who find\n> it easier to just say \"yeah, I am happy with that change\" than\n> submitting a new round.\n>\n> > In fact, I did not even see your fixup until I read your mail.\n>\n> This I actually would mind a bit more. The reason why I publish\n> 'seen' is to make it easier for authors of individual topics how\n> their work would play with other topics in flight, and it diminishes\n> the value of it if contributors do not pay attention to what is\n> queued there. I expect contributors to fetch and look at what is\n> queued in origin/seen.\n>\n> There may be evil merges that reveal subtle interactions between\n> topics, some of which may involve the topic an author may care\n> about. There may be fixups for problems that were not found during\n> review but only found during the integration process. I try to\n> communicate these back on the list when possible, but the thing is,\n> a day does not have sufficient number of minutes for me to always do\n> so.\n\nI understand. And I am trying my best to accommodate.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\n>\n> Thanks.\n>\n"}]}