Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2020, 11:52 UTC
Message-ID: <076b4bf6-2bc5-97d2-2a50-d6d59ea85221@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqimi9o705.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On 4/8/2020 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>>> In my latest attempt at documentation, I called these merges "diverters"
>>>> yet still used "--include-diversions". Here are a few other words that we
>>>> could use:
>>>>
>>>>  * diverters or diversions
>>>>  * redirects
>>>>  * switches (think railroad switch). Synonym: exchange
>>>>  * detours
>>>
>>> ...none of the above tells me that they are not no-op (in other
>>> words, they do something meaningful), so I must be coming from
>>> a direction different from you are.  What redirects from what other
>>> thing, for example?
>>
>> The merges do something meaningful: they "merge in" a "real" change.
> 
> Yes, but "redirect", "switch", "detour", or "divert" do not quite
> mean "merging in a real change", at least to me.

Makes sense to me. The way you explain why certain words don't work for you helps me think of new words to describe these merges:

 * signposts
 * guides
 * signals

For the argument, we cwould add "-merge" to each of these, such as "--signpost-merges" or "--signal-merges".

I'm going to keep replying to this thread with ideas until someone says "This one makes sense to me" or an equivalent. Alternatively, someone else could present an idea and then I get to say "Aha! That captures this concept clearly with an obvious metaphor!"

Thanks, -Stolee