Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] doc: add an UPSTREAM BRANCHES section to pull/push/fetch

From: Julia Evans <julia@jvns.ca>
Date: Oct 7, 2025, 13:35 UTC
Message-ID: <80f61c1e-8e0d-4a7b-868e-876091595e3d@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <48224822-9f8f-4230-97db-a7fdefa557a3@app.fastmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, at 8:23 AM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025, at 20:58, Julia Evans via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> There's also a very terse description of "upstream branch" in the
>> glossary that's missing a lot of key information, like the fact that the
>> upstream is used by `git status` and `git pull`, as well as a
>> description in `git-config` in `branch.<name>.remote` which doesn't
>> explain the relationship to `git status` either.
>
> nit: s/either/, either/ ?
>
> I think that would flow better given the long distance between the last
> punctuation/comma and the end of the sentence.

Is it the norm in this project to provide detailed copy editing feedback on commit messages like this? Of course it's important for commit messages to be accurate and to explain the motivation behind the changes, but I'm surprised by the attention to commas.

Show 9 quoted lines

>>
>> Since the `git pull`, `git push`, and `git fetch` man pages already
>> include sections on REMOTES and the syntax for URLs, add a section on
>> UPSTREAM BRANCHES to `urls-remotes.adoc`.
>>
>> In the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, cover the various ways that
>> upstreams branches are automatically set in Git, since users may
>
> nit: s/upstreams branches/upstream branches/

Will fix this typo if there's anything else to address (or if folks think that this is worth a re-roll on its own, not sure what the norms are).