Re: [PATCH] user-manual.txt: fix a few mistakes

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:19:39PM +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/user-manual.txt |    8 ++++----
>>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> index d99adc6..a169ef0 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ Bisecting: 3537 revisions left to test after this
>>  If you run "git branch" at this point, you'll see that git has
>>  temporarily moved you to a new branch named "bisect".  This branch
>>  points to a commit (with commit id 65934...) that is reachable from
>> -v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18.  Compile and test it, and see whether
>> +"master" but not from v2.6.18.  Compile and test it, and see whether
>>  it crashes.  Assume it does crash.  Then:
>>  
>>  -------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ If you make a commit that you later wish you hadn't, there are two
>>  fundamentally different ways to fix the problem:
>>  
>>  	1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done
>> -	by the previous commit.  This is the correct thing if your
>> +	by the old commit.  This is the correct thing if your
>>  	mistake has already been made public.
>>  
>>  	2. You can go back and modify the old commit.  You should
>> @@ -1567,8 +1567,8 @@ old history using, for example,
>>  $ git log master@{1}
>>  -------------------------------------------------
>>  
>> -This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head.
>> -This syntax can be used to with any git command that accepts a commit,
>
> I actually prefer "head" here.  On something like:
>
> 		 A--B--C
> 		/
> 	o--o--o
> 		\
> 		 o--o--o
>
>
> The term "branch" could be used to refer to the whole line of
> development consisting of A, B, and C.  The term "head", on the other
> hand, refers to either C or a ref that points to it.  We also use the
> terms "branch head" or just "branch" for that case, but I think "head"
> is more precise.