Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2013, 15:56 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7gklgc3g.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1051288663.727673.1364894817858.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net>

Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> writes:

> -[[def_directory]]directory::
> -	The list you get with "ls" :-)
> -

The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used to say "Folders" may not know what it is.

> -[[def_evil_merge]]evil merge::
> -	An evil merge is a <<def_merge,merge>> that introduces changes that
> -	do not appear in any <<def_parent,parent>>.

Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this fall into? It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is precisely and I do not think it is misleading. Is it irrelevant?

Show 9 quoted lines

> @@ -468,9 +452,7 @@ should not be combined with other pathspec.
>  	object of an arbitrary type (typically a tag points to either a
>  	<<def_tag_object,tag>> or a <<def_commit_object,commit object>>).
>  	In contrast to a <<def_head,head>>, a tag is not updated by
> -	the `commit` command. A Git tag has nothing to do with a Lisp
> -	tag (which would be called an <<def_object_type,object type>>
> -	in Git's context). A tag is most typically used to mark a particular
> +	the `commit` command. A tag is most typically used to mark a particular
>  	point in the commit ancestry <<def_chain,chain>>.

Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.

It's similar in spirit why I would prefer to keep `directory` to help people who speak of "Folders".

Other changes in this patch look OK to me.