From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 08:40:06 GMT
Subject: Re: git branch documentation improvements
Message-ID: <m2t2cfc40321005070140m85d51db7id75b5b897f2acc00@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE3BF2F.8050903@viscovery.net>

My minor quibble with start-point is that the naive user may assume
that, like CVS or SVN, git has some persistent notion of a "start
point".

In reality, git only tracks heads. A term like "head-commit" is, IMO,
more precise than "start-point" and does not potentially convey the
false notion that git knows or cares about the point at which a branch
was "started".

jon.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> Am 5/7/2010 0:24, schrieb Andreas Hartmetz:
>> The most significant change is renaming <start-point> (or is it
>> <startpoint>...) to <branch-head> because even I as a relative beginner know
>> that a branch is defined by its (movable) head, and <start-point> *does*
>> actually specify the new branch head if I'm not mistaken.
>
> But what is wrong with "start-point"? It precisely conveys the meaning of
> the parameter.
>
> -- Hannes
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>