From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:28:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges
Message-ID: <7d84fc45-786f-7a2e-5889-ef26916627ef@iee.email>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqimi9o705.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi

On 09/04/2020 01:08, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> In my latest attempt at documentation, I called these merges "diverters"
>>>> yet still used "--include-diversions". Here are a few other words that we
>>>> could use:
>>>>
>>>>  * diverters or diversions
>>>>  * redirects
>>>>  * switches (think railroad switch). Synonym: exchange
>>>>  * detours
>>> ...none of the above tells me that they are not no-op (in other
>>> words, they do something meaningful), so I must be coming from
>>> a direction different from you are.  What redirects from what other
>>> thing, for example?
>> The merges do something meaningful: they "merge in" a "real" change.
> Yes, but "redirect", "switch", "detour", or "divert" do not quite
> mean "merging in a real change", at least to me.
>
>> I'll just submit my v2 as-is, which includes a significant change to
>> the documentation that should make things more clear.
> Thanks.
Can I suggest "--side-merges" as a possible descriptor for these
non-mainline diversions?

My thesaurus had suggested detour and sidetracked, which led to the
side-merge view.

Philip