Re: [PATCH v3] git checkout: create unparented branch by --orphan

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2010, 08:54 UTC
Message-ID: <4BA73057.1020602@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <55bacdd31003211415k79b7a039n3f19eb95eefcad43@mail.gmail.com>

Erick Mattos venit, vidit, dixit 21.03.2010 22:15:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> 2010/3/21 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
>> I'm not native either, and "orphan" sounded strange in that we've never
>> used that word in any of our use case or workflow description in our
>> documents.
> 
> I didn't know.  I thought you were American.
> 
>> The main point of the feature is not the emptyness of the resulting tree
>> (it is merely one possible outcome), but is the lack of parents in the
>> resulting commit.  So I would recommend against --empty.  --root might be
>> a good synonym, though, and we _do_ already use that word for that purpose
>> in some commands (e.g. "log --root").
> 
> --root could be a synonym but the reason I haven't chosen it was the
> fact that it could mislead people to think the functionality will do
> something with/based on the first commit of the actual branch,
> subjectively thinking "THE ROOT".
> 
> IMHO --orphan (no parents) is more obvious.
> 
> We should argue one of our native English speaker amidst this
> developer community to be sure.

[Disclosure: non-native speaker but having lived with natives ;)]

I'd favour "root" for several reasons:

- "root" is the correct technical term in graph theory
- "root" is used the same way in other (Git) places
- "orphan" is someone who used to have parents, so with "orphan" I would
rather associate the process of removing parents from the picture
(removing parentship information from an existing commit)

Just my two Euro-cents :) Michael