RE: [PATCH 1/2] doc: pull: explain what is a fast-forward

> >> So I think it Philip's suggestion makes sense. We're not talking
> >> about how to fast-forward a tape, but what happens in git when we use
> >> that term.
> >
> > No. In this particular sentence we are using fast-forward *precisely*
> > in the same way as a tape. We haven't even talked about what
> > constitutes a "fast-forward" in git jargon.
> >
> > Substitute the word "fast-forward", and the meaning remains intact:
> >
> >   After the remote changes have been synchronized, the local `master`
> >   will be advanced to the same commit as the remote one, therefore
> >   creating a linear history.
> >
> > As I already explained.
> 
> I think even if you can accurately substitute the jargon it's worth quoting the
> jargon, to call out that it's jargon we're using quoted that place and others.
> 
> Anyway, that doesn't have much to do with your isolated change, just a
> general comment on quoting v.s. not quoting invented v.s. borrowed/reused
> words.
> 
> >> As an aside after however many years of using git this is the first
> >> time I made the connection to that usage of the term, I thought it
> >> was jargon git invented. That's also something to consider,
> >
> > I was in your camp, but after thinking deeply about what would be a
> > better term than "fast-forward" (advance, forward, boost), I realized
> > that in fact "fast-forward" is perfectly fine because it already
> > exists in English and conveys precisely the meaning we want: quickly
> > advance to a desired position.
> 
> I think whatever term we're introducing will need git-specific explanation.
> E.g. because a "tree" is an everyday object our use of it needs explaining.
> 
> >> I've also actually seen an interacted with a tape record and VHS tape
> >> in my lifetime, but I suspect many readers of this documentation have
> not.
> >
> > But they have pressed fast-forward on their Roku control, or whatever.
> >
> > Not only is it part of modern technology, but it's even used inside
> > films, TV shows, and video games. See TV Tropes for dozens of examples
> > where inside the film they fast-forward [1].
> 
> Unfortunately I haven't been able to non-fast-forward say the Game of
> Thrones TV show in such a way that the latest seasons makes any sense,
> since no amount of button mashing will merge their version with mine :)
> 
> So I think in the context of us using this jargon to describe git-specific
> concepts the connection to reality is tenuous at best

> Perhaps, it's not like I've got much in the way of a holistic world view with
> which to replace it.
> 
> I do think "perfect" would do a few things it doesn't though, imagine reading
> about it for the first time and not making the connection to tapes. Is it an
> optimization? Is there a slow-forward? What if upstream rewound there
> branch and I merge, is that a merge-backwards?
> 
> It's not immediately obvious how rebase/merge/fast-forward relate or
> if/when (e.g. merge sometimes being a merge-ff) they're incompatible
> concepts.