Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add a few more words to the glossary.
- From
Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
- Date
- May 4, 2006, 13:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <E1Fbe89-0006W5-JT@jdl.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vu0868h7a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
So, like, the other day Junio C Hamano mumbled:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com> writes: > > > ref:: > > - A 40-byte hex representation of a SHA1 pointing to a particular > > - object. These may be stored in `$GIT_DIR/refs/`. > > + A 40-byte hex representation of a SHA1 or a name that denotes > > + a particular object. These may be stored in `$GIT_DIR/refs/`. > >
> Uum. Not very clear. Do we use that word that often?
Well, I was mystified a bit too, and I tried to clean it up some... "ref" gets used as half a <refspec>, from pull-fetch-param.txt:
A parameter <ref> without a colon is equivalent to <ref>: when pulling/fetching, so it merges <ref> into the current branch without storing the remote branch anywhere locally
So maybe I was confused here.
Show 10 quoted lines
> > +symbolic ref:: > > + See "ref". > > I think I used that term to differenciate between HEAD symlink > pointing at refs/heads/master and HEAD being a regular file that > stores a line "ref: refs/heads/master\n"; the latter is the > modern style "textual symref", so in that context it is not > about 40-byte hex at all. And at that level it is really a > jargon to talk about one small implementation detail of HEAD, so > I am not sure it deserves to be in the glossary.
Given "git-symbolic-ref <name> [<ref>]", clearly I just botched it. You were right to drop my confused "symbolic ref" entry. :-(
Show 6 quoted lines
> > tracking branch:: > > - A regular git branch that is used to follow changes from > > + A regular git branch that is used to follow changes frompointing > > another repository. A tracking branch should not contain > > I think this is a typo?
Yes. Thanks for noticing and cleaning.
jdl