Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] glossary: mention 'treeish' as an alternative to 'tree-ish'

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 3, 2013, 22:46 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1u55plqe.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1378100066-31889-2-git-send-email-rhansen@bbn.com>

Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, so include both
> in the glossary so that a search for either will lead to the
> definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>
> ---

I hate to say this after seeing you doing a thorough job in this series, but because "tree-ish" and "commit-ish" are both made-up words, I have a feeling that we are better off unifying to the dashed form, which unfortunately is the other way around from what your series does.

Patches 5, 6 and 7 are good clarifications.

Show 16 quoted lines

>  Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> index dba5062..0273095 100644
> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ should not be combined with other pathspec.
>  	with refs to the associated blob and/or tree objects. A
>  	<<def_tree,tree>> is equivalent to a <<def_directory,directory>>.
>  
> -[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish::
> +[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish (also treeish)::
>  	A <<def_ref,ref>> pointing to either a <<def_commit_object,commit
>  	object>>, a <<def_tree_object,tree object>>, or a <<def_tag_object,tag
>  	object>> pointing to a tag or commit or tree object.