From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:55:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Change "tracking branch" to "remote-tracking branch"
Message-ID: <vpq1v7b84ja.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20101023184853.GH21040@burratino>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ to point at the new commit.
>>  	you have. In such these cases, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
>>  	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
>>  	revision. This will happen frequently on a
>> -	<<def_tracking_branch,tracking branch>> of a remote
>> +	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>>  	<<def_repository,repository>>.
>
> Why not keep the anchor name, like so:
>
> 	<<def_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>>
>
> (for brevity and to keep old links valid)?

(sorry, I had overlooked this message)

We could do that, but I don't think there are many links to the anchor
from outside
(http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fsoftware%2Fscm%2Fgit%2Fdocs%2Fgitglossary.html
suggests there are none, but it seems to have missed at least the one
in git(1)), and links would still point to the right page, if not to
the right anchor.

Your proposal would break the regularity of anchor names, which I
think is more important than brievety.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/