From: Philip Oakley Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:27:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] doc: revisions - define `reachable` Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <557eb782-ee45-3e33-33bb-aa88817dcd82@gmail.com> From: "Jakub Narębski" >W dniu 29.08.2016 o 15:21, Philip Oakley pisze: >> From: "Jakub Narębski" >> 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 -- Thanks. Philip