From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:59:22 GMT
Subject: Re: git branch documentation improvements
Message-ID: <r2l2cfc40321005061559p9d3a5392rdc2b30f63a34ab9b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201005070024.41172.ahartmetz@gmail.com>

This patch would be easier to review, and thus more likely to be
accepted, if the guidelines in SubmittingPatches had been followed,
w.r.t. not using attachments to submit patches.


On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Andreas Hartmetz <ahartmetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Today I read the git branch documentation and noticed a few things, mostly
> style and consistency related, that could easily be improved, so I did just
> that.
> Please consider merging the attached patch if it looks good, or tell me what
> you don't like about it.
> 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.
>

While I agree with you start start-point is probably the wrong name
for this parameter, I wonder whether branch-head might be too
suggestive that the value of that parameter must itself be an existing
branch head.

I think the term "head-commit" would be a more accurate way to
describe the possible values of this parameter. That is, it is the
commit that will become the head of the new branch.

jon.