# [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag 17 messages from 2011-03-28 to 2011-03-29. Participants: Michael Witten, Eric Raible, Junio C Hamano, Michael J Gruber. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/26891 ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:35 Subject: [PATCH 01/10] Docs: git tag: Add `the' Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-2-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-2-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 61263fa..7844ff1 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ You can test which tag you have by doing which should return 0123456789abcdef.. if you have the new version. -Sorry for inconvenience. +Sorry for the inconvenience. ------------ Does this seem a bit complicated? It *should* be. There is no -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:40 Subject: [PATCH 02/10] Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-3-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-3-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 7844ff1..e276393 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ Sorry for the inconvenience. ------------ Does this seem a bit complicated? It *should* be. There is no -way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind peoples +way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind people's backs. People need to know that their tags might have been changed. -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:49 Subject: [PATCH 03/10] Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-4-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-4-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 7 ++++--- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index e276393..68eebee 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -189,9 +189,10 @@ the toplevel but not limited to them. Mere mortals when pulling from each other do not necessarily want to automatically get private anchor point tags from the other person. -You would notice "please pull" messages on the mailing list says -repo URL and branch name alone. This is designed to be easily -cut&pasted to a 'git fetch' command line: +Often, "please pull" messages on the mailing list just provide +two pieces of information: a repo URL and a branch name; this +is designed to be easily cut&pasted at the end of a 'git fetch' +command line: ------------ Linus, please pull from -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:51 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-5-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-5-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 68eebee..b348c3d 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -208,8 +208,8 @@ becomes: $ git pull git://git..../proj.git master ------------ -In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow other's -tags. +In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow the other +person's tags. One important aspect of git is it is distributed, and being distributed largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:53 Subject: [PATCH 05/10] Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-6-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-6-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index b348c3d..9ec2715 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -211,8 +211,8 @@ $ git pull git://git..../proj.git master In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow the other person's tags. -One important aspect of git is it is distributed, and being -distributed largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or +One important aspect of git is its distributed nature, which +largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or "downstream" in the system. On the face of it, the above example might seem to indicate that the tag namespace is owned by upper echelon of people and tags only flow downwards, but -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:55 Subject: [PATCH 06/10] Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-7-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-7-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 9ec2715..73f340b 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ One important aspect of git is its distributed nature, which largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or "downstream" in the system. On the face of it, the above example might seem to indicate that the tag namespace is owned -by upper echelon of people and tags only flow downwards, but +by the upper echelon of people and that tags only flow downwards, but that is not the case. It only shows that the usage pattern determines who are interested in whose tags. -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:58 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-8-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-8-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Also, remove an unnecessary parenthetical comment. Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 73f340b..695a224 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -225,9 +225,9 @@ primarily interested in the networking part of the kernel") who may have their own set of tags (e.g. "this is the third release candidate from the networking group to be proposed for general consumption with 2.6.21 release") to another circle of people -(e.g. "people who integrate various subsystem improvements"). -The latter are usually not interested in the detailed tags used -internally in the former group (that is what "internal" means). +(e.g. "people who integrate various subsystem improvements") who +are usually not interested in the detailed tags used +internally in the former group. That is why it is desirable not to follow tags automatically in this case. -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 14:59 Subject: [PATCH 08/10] Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-9-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-9-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 695a224..0b24c87 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ this case. It may well be that among networking people, they may want to exchange the tags internal to their group, but in that workflow -they are most likely tracking with each other's progress by +they are most likely tracking each other's progress by having remote-tracking branches. Again, the heuristic to automatically follow such tags is a good thing. -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 15:01 Subject: [PATCH 09/10] Docs: git tag: Use semicolon Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-10-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-10-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 0b24c87..3dd78a0 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ On Backdating Tags If you have imported some changes from another VCS and would like to add tags for major releases of your work, it is useful to be able -to specify the date to embed inside of the tag object. The data in +to specify the date to embed inside of the tag object; such data in the tag object affects, for example, the ordering of tags in the gitweb interface. -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 15:11 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-11-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-11-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Signed-off-by: Michael Witten --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 8 ++++---- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 3dd78a0..21dc06f 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -248,16 +248,16 @@ the tag object affects, for example, the ordering of tags in the gitweb interface. To set the date used in future tag objects, set the environment -variable GIT_COMMITTER_DATE to one or more of the date and time. The -date and time can be specified in a number of ways; the most common -is "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM". +variable GIT_COMMITTER_DATE (see the later discussion of possible +values; the most common form is "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM"). -An example follows. +For example: ------------ $ GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="2006-10-02 10:31" git tag -s v1.0.1 ------------ +include::date-formats.txt[] SEE ALSO -------- -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-28 15:32 Subject: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Message-ID: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten%40gmail.com ``` Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. Michael Witten (10): Docs: git tag: Add `the' Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' Docs: git tag: Use semicolon Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE Documentation/git-tag.txt | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) -- 1.7.4.18.g68fe8 ``` ## Eric Raible, 2011-03-28 18:02 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs Message-ID: <4D90CD1B.4030906@nextest.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4D90CD1B.4030906%40nextest.com In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-3-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` On 11:59 AM, Michael Witten wrote: > Signed-off-by: Michael Witten > --- > Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt > index 7844ff1..e276393 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ Sorry for the inconvenience. > ------------ > > Does this seem a bit complicated? It *should* be. There is no > -way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind peoples > +way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind people's > backs. People need to know that their tags might have been > changed. s/people's/peoples'/ Or probably even better: /behind people's backs/automatically/ ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2011-03-28 18:04 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Message-ID: <7v8vvzyvdi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v8vvzyvdi.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> ``` Michael Witten writes: > Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. > > Michael Witten (10): > Docs: git tag: Add `the' > Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs > Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. > Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's > Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. > Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' > Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again > Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' > Docs: git tag: Use semicolon > Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE Thanks; all looked sensible changes, except for 7/10 which I somehow find the original is more readable than the new text, partly because the sentences are shorter but more importantly because the two sentences make two separate assertions (the first is about what "one-shot" pull means, the second is about why automatic tag following is not desired in that situation). ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-29 02:02 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTinNb%2BGxEFDs_%2BKQvRyt4N%3DWrDmncUnbaCqAnAqM%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4D90CD1B.4030906@nextest.com> ``` On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 13:02, Eric Raible wrote: > On 11:59 AM, Michael Witten wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Michael Witten >> --- >>  Documentation/git-tag.txt |    2 +- >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> index 7844ff1..e276393 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ Sorry for the inconvenience. >>  ------------ >> >>  Does this seem a bit complicated?  It *should* be. There is no >> -way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind peoples >> +way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind people's >>  backs. People need to know that their tags might have been >>  changed. > > s/people's/peoples'/ Actually, "people" is already plural, and thus "people's" is the correct possessive form (as with "women" and "women's"); "peoples", on the other hand, means diffent groups of people. For instance: There are many people in China. Each of the various peoples in China has its own language; Hokkien is the language of my particular people. At least that's how I know the usage. How about changing it to "behind a person's back"? Perhaps the whole informal tone is what needs to be changed. > Or probably even better: > > /behind people's backs/automatically/ I don't feel that the word "automatically" sufficiently conveys the unexpected nature of such an event. ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-29 02:06 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTi%3DwEp40mx%3Dg%3DMhUYSjJN%3DcF%2BH%2BGEvbFyaV_yrot%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7v8vvzyvdi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 13:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Witten writes: > >> Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. >> >> Michael Witten (10): >>   Docs: git tag: Add `the' >>   Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs >>   Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. >>   Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's >>   Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. >>   Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' >>   Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again >>   Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' >>   Docs: git tag: Use semicolon >>   Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE > > Thanks; all looked sensible changes, except for 7/10 which I somehow find > the original is more readable than the new text, partly because the > sentences are shorter but more importantly because the two sentences make > two separate assertions (the first is about what "one-shot" pull means, > the second is about why automatic tag following is not desired in that > situation). Fair enough. ``` ## Michael J Gruber, 2011-03-29 06:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Message-ID: <4D917B5E.1000600@drmicha.warpmail.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4D917B5E.1000600%40drmicha.warpmail.net In-Reply-To: <7v8vvzyvdi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 28.03.2011 20:04: > Michael Witten writes: > >> Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. >> >> Michael Witten (10): >> Docs: git tag: Add `the' >> Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs >> Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. >> Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's >> Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. >> Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' >> Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again >> Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' >> Docs: git tag: Use semicolon >> Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE > > Thanks; all looked sensible changes, except for 7/10 which I somehow find > the original is more readable than the new text, partly because the > sentences are shorter but more importantly because the two sentences make > two separate assertions (the first is about what "one-shot" pull means, > the second is about why automatic tag following is not desired in that > situation). Looked mostly sensible to me (and I share Junio's view on 7), too, although I probably would have changed "other's" simply to "others'". And yes, while I like the dramatic sound of "behind peoples' backs", you're absolutely right with "people's", of course:) Those 10 patches could have been 1 actually, they are really divided into atoms (which is not bad per se) even though they all fall under "cosmetic language corrections and improvements" without any content change nor restructuring. Michael ``` ## Michael Witten, 2011-03-29 13:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTi%3DU8amjCM7%3Dbn2%3DewJs2UpNG%2BD%2BsCKm4pPf4hP-%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4D917B5E.1000600@drmicha.warpmail.net> ``` On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 01:25, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 28.03.2011 20:04: >> Michael Witten writes: >> >>> Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. >>> >>> Michael Witten (10): >>>   Docs: git tag: Add `the' >>>   Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs >>>   Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. >>>   Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's >>>   Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. >>>   Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' >>>   Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again >>>   Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' >>>   Docs: git tag: Use semicolon >>>   Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE >> >> Thanks; all looked sensible changes, except for 7/10 which I somehow find >> the original is more readable than the new text, partly because the >> sentences are shorter but more importantly because the two sentences make >> two separate assertions (the first is about what "one-shot" pull means, >> the second is about why automatic tag following is not desired in that >> situation). > > Looked mostly sensible to me (and I share Junio's view on 7), too, > although I probably would have changed "other's" simply to "others'". I probably chose the singular variant for 2 reasons: I generally prefer singular renditions, and the sentence is referring to an example of a pull-request from one individual. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 01:25, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Those 10 patches could have been 1 actually, they are really divided > into atoms (which is not bad per se) even though they all fall under > "cosmetic language corrections and improvements" without any content > change nor restructuring. It's always hard to tell what delineations will be appreciated. However, it's almost always the case that the smaller a patch is, the more quickly it can be reviewed and approved (also, the smaller the diff, the more meaningful the commit message), so I err on the side of too small; after all, it's generally much easier to squash than to split. Of course, I would have no problem if Junio ultimately saw fit to squash some or all of them (with a note that such squashing has occurred). Thanks for your input. ```