Re: git branch documentation improvements
- From
- Andreas Hartmetz <ahartmetz@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 7, 2010, 02:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201005070428.16827.ahartmetz@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <r2l2cfc40321005061559p9d3a5392rdc2b30f63a34ab9b@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday 07 May 2010 00:59:22 Jon Seymour wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Andreas Hartmetz <ahartmetz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> > Today I read the git branch documentation and noticed a few things, > > mostly style and consistency related, that could easily be improved, so > > I did just that. > > Please consider merging the attached patch if it looks good, or tell me > > what you don't like about it. > > The most significant change is renaming <start-point> (or is it > > <startpoint>...) to <branch-head> because even I as a relative beginner > > know that a branch is defined by its (movable) head, and <start-point> > > *does* actually specify the new branch head if I'm not mistaken. > > While I agree with you start start-point is probably the wrong name > for this parameter, I wonder whether branch-head might be too > suggestive that the value of that parameter must itself be an existing > branch head. > > I think the term "head-commit" would be a more accurate way to > describe the possible values of this parameter. That is, it is the > commit that will become the head of the new branch. >
Another suggestion I came up with much earlier that I recalled just now: <new-head>