Re: [PATCH v2] wording fixes in the user manual and glossary

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 27, 2014, 19:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4n0bf19b.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1401114023-4015-1-git-send-email-jmmahler@gmail.com>

Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@gmail.com> writes:

Show 56 quoted lines

> Various minor wording fixes throughout the user manual
> and glossary.
>
> The section on "Updating a repository with git fetch" was
> substantially re-worded to try and better explain `git fetch`.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
>     From the feedback I received by Chris Packham [1] it was clear
>     that my re-wording of the section "Updating a repository with git fetch"
>     still wasn't quite right [1].
>     
>     [1]: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=140100460903936&w=2
>     
>     I re-worded it some more to try and emphasize the remote (upstream)
>     and local aspects of `git fetch`.  Chris liked those changes better [2].
>     
>     [2]: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=140109062903038&w=2
>     
>     I expanded upon this even further.  The section on git-pull is similar
>     so I tried to use that as a basis.  I also thought the relationship between
>     git fetch and git pull was worthy of a short note along with a link to
>     the section on git-pull.
>
>  Documentation/glossary-content.txt |  2 +-
>  Documentation/user-manual.txt      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> index be0858c..4e0b971 100644
> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  [[def_alternate_object_database]]alternate object database::
>  	Via the alternates mechanism, a <<def_repository,repository>>
>  	can inherit part of its <<def_object_database,object database>>
> -	from another object database, which is called "alternate".
> +	from another object database, which is called an "alternate".
>  
>  [[def_bare_repository]]bare repository::
>  	A bare repository is normally an appropriately
> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> index d33f884..f5fd61b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> @@ -416,14 +416,22 @@ REVISIONS" section of linkgit:gitrevisions[7].
>  Updating a repository with git fetch
>  ------------------------------------
>  
> -Eventually the developer cloned from will do additional work in her
> -repository, creating new commits and advancing the branches to point
> -at the new commits.
> +After you clone a repository and commit a few changes of your own, you
> +may wish to check the original repository for updates.

The above is very good.

> +The linkgit:git-fetch[1] command is used to update all the remote-tracking
> +branches to the latest version found in those repositories.
> +It will not touch any of your own branches--not even the "master"
> +branch that was created during clone.

It is harder to review with unnecessary rewrapping of the text X-<.

I somehow feel that the original was clear around here, by being explicit that "git fetch $there $that" is not it is talking about, which seems to have been lost in this update.

Show 6 quoted lines

> +The linkgit:git-merge[1] command can then be used to merge the changes.
> +
> +-------------------------------------------------
> +$ git fetch
> +$ git merge origin/master
> +-------------------------------------------------

That is not wrong per-se, but it is not a very good example. If you immediately merge, there is no reason not to say "git pull" in the first place ;-) For this to be a good example, there needs

	git log -p ..origin/master

before that merge happens, I would think.

Not that I read the text around here and confirmed that this is a good place in the overall flow of the learning to teach about "log -p" and "merge", though.

Show 8 quoted lines

> @@ -1811,8 +1819,8 @@ manner.
>  You can then import these into your mail client and send them by
>  hand.  However, if you have a lot to send at once, you may prefer to
>  use the linkgit:git-send-email[1] script to automate the process.
> -Consult the mailing list for your project first to determine how they
> -prefer such patches be handled.
> +Consult the mailing list for your project first to determine
> +their requirements for submitting patches.

OK.

Show 8 quoted lines

>  [[importing-patches]]
>  Importing patches to a project
> @@ -2255,7 +2263,7 @@ $ git checkout test && git merge speed-up-spinlocks
>  It is unlikely that you would have any conflicts here ... but you might if you
>  spent a while on this step and had also pulled new versions from upstream.
>  
> -Some time later when enough time has passed and testing done, you can pull the
> +Sometime later when enough time has passed and testing done, you can pull the

OK.