Re: [PATCH] Fix grammar in the 1.8.3 release notes.

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:28:21AM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>> On 13-04-29 05:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This started out as an attempt to make the backward compatibility notes
>>>> more parsable, but then I just kept going...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>>   * "git bundle" did not like a bundle created using a commit without
>>>> -   any message as its one of the prerequistes.
>>>> +   any message, as it is one of the prerequistes.
>>>
>>> This is actually saying a different thing.  
>>>
>>> When you create a bundle, you can say "you can only unbundle this in
>>> a repository that has commit X", with "git bundle create $name ^X Y
>>> Z".  Such a commit X is called the bundle's prerequisite.  You can
>>> have more than one prerequisite, e.g. "... ^X ^W Y Z".
>>>
>>> But if you create a bundle by using a commit that does not have any
>>> message as X (i.e. the bundle's prerequisite), the "git bundle" did
>>> not like to read the resulting bundle output.
>>>
>>> So <a commit <without any message> as its (bundle's) one of the
>>> prerequisites> is what the original wanted to say.  The rewrite
>>> makes it read like "For a commit, having a message is a requirement
>>> to be used in a bundle", at least to me.
>>
>> Thanks, I did get that wrong.
>>
>> CC'ing Lukas, who wrote the relevant commit (5446e33f35).
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> * "git bundle" can create a bundle that has a commit without a message as
>>   a prerequisite, but it could not work with such a bundle.
> 
> Looks fine to me.
> 
> Junio's version with the last part changed to "as one of its
> prerequisites" sounds also good to me (in both cases, however, note the
> missing "i" in "prerequisites").
> 
> A third suggestion:
> 
>     "git bundle" erroneously bailed out when parsing a valid bundle
>     containing a prerequisite commit without a commit message.