From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:14:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"
Message-ID: <12b0e7dc-4c00-4f0e-bef7-ff76f3054b71@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <85ce46a9-a097-462a-aa1b-904eeb7b89ad@app.fastmail.com>

On 10/12/2025 12:04, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025, at 12:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> We do talk about "branch heads" in our documentation and they point
>>> commits. We also use "tip" when talking about the commit the branch
>>> points to so maybe something like
>>>
>>>       Update all branches whose tip is replayed
>>>
>>> though I think it would be clearer if we could say "commit" somewhere as
>>> that's what we're replaying. I find the concept of "contained branches"
>>> rather obscure.
>>
>> Thanks, I do agree that "branch head", "tip of the branch", etc. can
>> be used pretty much interchangeably, and using "commit" somwhere
>> would make it clear.
>>
>> 	Update all branches that point at commits in the replayed
>> 	<revision-range>.
>>
>> perhaps?  I dunno.
> 
> I like this. Or just
> 
>      Update all branches that point at commits in <revision-range>.

I'd be happy with either one

Thanks

Phillip