Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2013, 18:26 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy5d0dc0d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <559824715.741522.1364923497242.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net>

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

Show 13 quoted lines

>> 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.
>> 
> I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that
> this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.
>
>> 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.
>> 
> I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth
> to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.

For the above two (they are of the same theme) to help one audience, I tend to be cautious and try not to say "I don't fall into the target audience, and to me it is misleading/irrelevant, so let's remove it".

Show 8 quoted lines

>> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this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  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a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?
>> 
> I considered it "irrelevant" because it tries to define 
> "evil merge" which is - at least to my experience - not used
> as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.

In a merge-heavy workflow, evil merges have to happen from time to time, and it is a good concept to know about.

I however think the description is too literal and it does not lead to the understanding of what it is used for. I see a few questions on the stackoverflow with unsatisfactory literal answers, too.