From: Sergey Organov Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 21:01:59 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Documentation/git-merge.txt: improve short description in NAME Message-ID: <87a8eiqzlk.fsf@javad.com> In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > sorganov@gmail.com writes: > >> From: Sergey Organov >> >> Old description not only raised the question of why the tool is called >> git-merge rather than git-join, but "join histories" also sounds like >> very simple operation, something like what "git-merge -s ours" does. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov >> --- >> Documentation/git-merge.txt | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt >> index 216d2f4..cc0329d 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt >> @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ git-merge(1) >> >> NAME >> ---- >> -git-merge - Join two or more development histories together >> + >> +git-merge - Merge one or more branches to the current branch > > This patch, evaluated by itself, looks like a regression in that it > tries to explain "merge" by using verb "merge", making it fuzzier to > those who do not yet know what a "merge" is. That was why it tried > to explain "merge" as an operation to join histories. My thought was that "merge", the operation, is so well-known term that it could well go into the NAME section without explanation. Besides: $ man merge NAME merge - three-way file merge [...] Uses the same pattern. > > However, the next one, 5/6, resurrects the "join history" in the > description part to help them, so the damage is not so severe when > we take them together. Damage? In SCM world we can track the issue back to: $ man -k rcsmerge rcsmerge (1) - merge RCS revisions -- Sergey