From: Andreas Hartmetz <ahartmetz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 02:28:16 GMT
Subject: Re: git branch documentation improvements
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:
> > 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>