Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2020, 00:08 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqimi9o705.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <91fafa17-c58f-dcd0-320d-48c4512561f6@gmail.com>

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

>>> In my latest attempt at documentation, I called these merges "diverters"
>>> yet still used "--include-diversions". Here are a few other words that we
>>> could use:
>>>
>>>  * diverters or diversions
>>>  * redirects
>>>  * switches (think railroad switch). Synonym: exchange
>>>  * detours
>> 
>> ...none of the above tells me that they are not no-op (in other
>> words, they do something meaningful), so I must be coming from
>> a direction different from you are.  What redirects from what other
>> thing, for example?
>
> The merges do something meaningful: they "merge in" a "real" change.

Yes, but "redirect", "switch", "detour", or "divert" do not quite mean "merging in a real change", at least to me.

> I'll just submit my v2 as-is, which includes a significant change to
> the documentation that should make things more clear.

Thanks.