Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-merge.txt: fix reference to synopsys

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2023, 16:29 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BHBncDqCSvGm6Ow2D2+JQLf_3htwnxZ-RWV+tsxiH1rhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c6814a39-b4f9-4b1e-b81b-45ffe4aa7466@web.de>

Hi,

I'm getting in on the fun by adding a little nit-picking of my own.  :-)

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:46 AM René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

>
> Am 20.12.23 um 08:05 schrieb Michael Lohmann:
>
> Thank you for this patch and sorry for the nitpicking below!
>
> > 437591a9d738 changed the synopsys from two separate lines for `--abort`
>
> "Synopsys" is a software company.  A "synopsis" is a brief outline.
>
> > and `--continue` to a single line (and it also simultaneously added
> > `--quit`). That way the "enumeration" of the syntax for `--continue` is
> > no longer valid. Since `--quit` is now also part of the same syntax
> > line, a general statement cannot be made any more. Instead of trying to
> > enumerate the synopsys, be explicit in the limitations of when
> > respective actions are valid.
>
> Had to think a moment before I understood that "enumeration" refers to
> "The second syntax" and "The third syntax", which have been combined
> into this line:
>
>        git merge (--continue | --abort | --quit)
>
> And it does make sense that we can no longer say "second syntax" and
> only refer to "git merge --abort", or "third syntax" and mean "git
> merge --continue".  In other words: References by number are no longer
> valid after a merge of some of the synopses.

Thanks for explaining; I also missed that in reading over the original patch. It'd be great if Michael could update the commit message to make this a bit more clear.

Show 28 quoted lines

> > This change also groups `--abort` and `--continue` together when
> > explaining the circumstances under which they can be run in order to
> > avoid duplication.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Lohmann <mi.al.lohmann@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/git-merge.txt | 19 +++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > index e8ab340319..d8863cc943 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
> > @@ -46,21 +46,20 @@ a log message from the user describing the changes. Before the operation,
> >      D---E---F---G---H master
> >  ------------
> >
> > -The second syntax ("`git merge --abort`") can only be run after the
> > -merge has resulted in conflicts. 'git merge --abort' will abort the
> > -merge process and try to reconstruct the pre-merge state. However,
> > -if there were uncommitted changes when the merge started (and
> > -especially if those changes were further modified after the merge
> > -was started), 'git merge --abort' will in some cases be unable to
> > -reconstruct the original (pre-merge) changes. Therefore:
> > +It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being
> > +completely automatic. "`git merge --continue`" and "`git merge --abort`"
>               ^^^^^^^^^
>               automatically

Do you perhaps mean "completed automatically" (i.e. change both of the last two words in that sentence, and not just the last one)? That would make sense to me, and I like that wording a little better. But I think either you need to change both of the last two words of that sentence (my preference), or neither of them.

> > +can only be run after the merge has resulted in conflicts.
>
> The connection between these two sentences feels weak to me.

This sentence is a bit more problematic than that: Even when there are no conflicts, "git merge --no-commit" will also stop a merge, and one can then use either --abort or --continue. So the assertion made by this sentence that you're reviewing is not accurate.

Show 5 quoted lines

>  Perhaps something like this:
>
>    A merge stops if there's a conflict that cannot be resolved
>    automatically.  At that point you can run `git merge --abort` or
>    `git merge --continue`.

I like this alternative wording; it avoids the incorrect assertion and uses something equivalent to the "completed automatically" suggested above.