threads / discuss / 33356

patch, 3 partsAw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

Subject: Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

## tl;dr

2 messages between Apr 2, 2013 and Apr 2, 2013. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Thomas Ackermann· Apr 2, 2013, 17:24 UTC · lore
Show 5 quoted lines
> 
> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes
> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used
> to say "Folders" may not know what it is.
>

I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.

Show 6 quoted lines
> 
> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this
> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a
> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is
> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?
>

I considered it "irrelevant" because it tries to define "evil merge" which is - at least to my experience - not used as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.

Show 5 quoted lines
> 
> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect
> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is
> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.
>

I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.

--- Thomas

Junio C Hamano· Apr 2, 2013, 18:26 UTC · re: Thomas Ackermann · lore

Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove outdated/missleading/irrelevant entries from glossary-content.txt

Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> Even though I personally am slightly in favor of removal, I suspect
>> that is primarily because I already know what Git tag is, and it is
>> different from the type tag in the Lisp-speak.
>> 
> I assumed the cardinality of the set of Lisp users is so small that
> this addition will confuse more people than help somebody.
>
>> The text indeed has a room for improvement, but it probably makes
>> sense to have an entry for `directory` here, as folks who are used
>> to say "Folders" may not know what it is.
>> 
> I assumed the number of such people so low that it's not worth
> to keep this - to most people obvious - explanation.

For the above two (they are of the same theme) to help one audience, I tend to be cautious and try not to say "I don't fall into the target audience, and to me it is misleading/irrelevant, so let's remove it".

Show 8 quoted lines
>> Which one of outdated, misleading or irrelevant category does this
>> fall into?  It certainly is not outdated (diff --cc/-c is often a
>> way to view evil merges), the text defines what an evil merge is
>> precisely and I do not think it is misleading.  Is it irrelevant?
>> 
> I considered it "irrelevant" because it tries to define 
> "evil merge" which is - at least to my experience - not used
> as some kind of well known notion. But I might of course be wrong.

In a merge-heavy workflow, evil merges have to happen from time to time, and it is a good concept to know about.

I however think the description is too literal and it does not lead to the understanding of what it is used for. I see a few questions on the stackoverflow with unsatisfactory literal answers, too.

← back to recent threads