Re: Patch to tutorial.txt

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> > On 11/19/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> [...]
> >>>  ------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>  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...