Re: [PATCH 03/10] Change remote tracking to remote-tracking in non-trivial places
- From
Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
- Date
- Oct 23, 2010, 19:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <vpqpqv0loi9.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101023184429.GG21040@burratino>
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> --- a/Documentation/everyday.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/everyday.txt >> @@ -180,12 +180,12 @@ directory; clone from it to start a repository on the satellite >> machine. >> <2> clone sets these configuration variables by default. >> It arranges `git pull` to fetch and store the branches of mothership >> -machine to local `remotes/origin/*` tracking branches. >> +machine to local `remotes/origin/*` remote-tracking branches. > > I find this scans better as "tracking branches", but consistent use of > jargon might trump that. Maybe it could be reworded somehow? > > <2> clone sets these configuration variables by default. > They arrange for `git pull` to fetch and store the branches > of the mothership machine to local `remotes/origin/*` tracking > refs. > > Not sure. remotes/origin/* are not branches for local development, so > calling them "branches" without a "remote-tracking" caveat can be > confusing.
That's not terribly important, since we already have "tracking" in the sentence, and `remotes/origin/*` to make it unambiguous, but I tend to prefer using the exact same wording everywhere.
What do other think?
-- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/