From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:40:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"
Message-ID: <CABPp-BHk+Vm5PvBJ12T50kZsZM1DFOj5eZ7sAPu8j3sanF8SKw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <12b0e7dc-4c00-4f0e-bef7-ff76f3054b71@gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 6:14 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2025 12:04, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025, at 12:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> We do talk about "branch heads" in our documentation and they point
> >>> commits. We also use "tip" when talking about the commit the branch
> >>> points to so maybe something like
> >>>
> >>>       Update all branches whose tip is replayed
> >>>
> >>> though I think it would be clearer if we could say "commit" somewhere as
> >>> that's what we're replaying. I find the concept of "contained branches"
> >>> rather obscure.
> >>
> >> Thanks, I do agree that "branch head", "tip of the branch", etc. can
> >> be used pretty much interchangeably, and using "commit" somwhere
> >> would make it clear.
> >>
> >>      Update all branches that point at commits in the replayed
> >>      <revision-range>.
> >>
> >> perhaps?  I dunno.
> >
> > I like this. Or just
> >
> >      Update all branches that point at commits in <revision-range>.
>
> I'd be happy with either one

Same.