Re: Patch to tutorial.txt

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 20, 2006, 08:49 UTC
Message-ID: <200611200949.32722.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4d8e3fd30611200030p1d117445qd3f7d619c18a0633@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:

> On 11/19/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>>> From: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:41:31 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to
>>> make it easier to be understood by the reader
>>
>> Wordwrap. Perhaps it would be better to split description into short line,
>> and two-line description.

See http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/CommitMessageConventions

In short, it is better to split description into short one-line
description, for example
  "Documentation: Make comment about merging in tutorial.txt more clear"
followed by empty line, then longer description of changes (if any), for
example

  One of the comment was not really clear, rephrased to make it easier
  to be understood by the reader

followed by empty line, then signoff line, for example

  Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>

> This is not clear to me, when I do a "git commit -a" I can add a text using vi,
> should I manually split the text in multiple lines?
> Only the first line will be part of the Subject?

Yes. The rest will be in the email body.

Show 14 quoted lines

>> [...]
>>>  ------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>  at this point the two branches have diverged, with different changes
>>> -made in each.  To merge the changes made in the two branches, run
>>> +made in each.  To merge the changes made in experimental into master run
>>
>> I would rather say:
>>   To merge the changes made in the two branches into master, run
> 
> Why Jakub? There are only two branches, master and experimental.
> While sitting in master and doing git pull . experimental I would
> expect to merge I did in experimental into master. Changes did in
> master are alreay merged in master. Am I wrong?

For me, "merge" in "to merge the changes" phrase is merge in common-sense meaning of the world, not the SCM jargon. Merge the changes == join the changes, so you have to give both sides, both changes you join.

Merge the changes == take changes in branch 'experimental' since forking, take changes in branch 'master' since forking, join those changes together (merge), and put the result of this joining (this merge) into branch 'master'.

On the contrary, in "merge branch 'experimenta' into 'master'" phrase "merge" is in the SCM meaning of this word.

Just my 2 eurocoents of not native English speaker...

-- 
Jakub Narebski