Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] doc: revisions - define `reachable`

>W dniu 29.08.2016 o 15:21, Philip Oakley pisze:
>> From: "Jakub Narębski" <jnareb@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 2:01 PM
>>> W dniu 12.08.2016 o 09:07, Philip Oakley pisze:
> [...]
>
>>>> +For these commands,
>>>> +specifying a single revision, using the notation described in the
>>>> +previous section, means the set of commits `reachable` from the given
>>>> +commit.
> [...]
>>>> +
>>>> +A commit's reachable set is the commit itself and the commits in
>>>> +its ancestry chain.
>>>> +
>>>
>>> It is all right, but perhaps it would be better to just repeat:
>>>
>>>  +Set of commits reachable from given commit is the commit itself
>>>  +and all the commits in its ancestry chain.
>>
>> It's very easy to go around in circles here. The original issue was
>> the A..B notation for the case where A is a direct descendant of B,
>> such that new users, or users more familiar with range notations from
>> elsewhere, would expect that the A..B range is *inclusive*, rather
>> than an open / closed interval. It was the addressing of that problem
>> that lead to the updating of the 'reachability' definition.
>
> All right, I can see that.  It is a worthwhile goal.
>
>> The main part of my sentence formation was to make the 'reachable'
>> part the defining element, rather than being a feature of the set.
>> Maybe it's using the 'set' viewpoint that is distracting?>>
>
> One one hand, the "A commit's reachable set is ..." approach puts
> 'reachable' upfront.  On the other hand it introduces new terminology,
> namely 'reachable set' (or 'reachable set of a commit' to be more
> exact)...  it doesn't read that well to me, but I am not a native
> speaker.
>
> But as I wrote, this is quite all right anyway
> -- 
> Jakub Narębski