patchdocs: typo in glossary content

From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>

his->this The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person

Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
---
    typo in glossary content
    
    his->this The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here
    to a branch not a person

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-957%2Frobi-y%2Fmaster-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/957

 Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at 9290cd58 (Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).

The "fast-forward" situation it describes happens when you try to merge somebody else's history into your history, and if you do not have anything of your own since the history of the other party forked from your history. In such a situation, instead of creating a merge commit whose parents are the tip of your history and the tip of the history of the other party, you just update the pointer that points at the tip of your history (i.e. HEAD) to point at the commit at the tip of the history of the other party.

One would refer to that commit, as "the tip of _HIS_ history", if one does not bother trying to be gender neutral by repeatedly saying "the other party". So, "his" you touched is correct. The description that leads to this part talks about two "revisions" (i.e. the one you have, and the other one you are merging), and rewriting it to "this" revision makes it unclear which one is meant.

I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party", especially since that would help reduce confusion. How about phrasing

    In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
    <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to
    point at the same revision as the other party's.  This will
    happen often ...

perhaps?

Thanks.

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Alternatively, since we start with "you are 'merging' another branch's changes", we could say

    ... but instead just update your branch to point at the same
    revision as the branch you are merging.  This will happen often
    ...

From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>

The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour, improved through a discussion with @Junio

Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
---
    typo in glossary content
    
    his->this The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here
    to a branch not a person

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-957%2Frobi-y%2Fmaster-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/957

Range-diff vs v1:

 1:  c063a7f9abfd ! 1:  66a3f7e642b6 docs: typo in glossary content
     @@ Metadata
      Author: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
      
       ## Commit message ##
     -    docs: typo in glossary content
     +    docs: improve fast-forward in glossary content
      
     -    his->this
     -    The 't' probably just failed while typing, since we refer here to a branch not a person
     +    The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour,
     +    improved through a discussion with @Junio
      
          Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
      
     @@ Documentation/glossary-content.txt: current branch integrates with) obviously do
       	<<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what
       	you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
      -	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
     -+	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this
     - 	revision. This will happen frequently on a
     +-	revision. This will happen frequently on a
     ++	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update your branch to point at the same
     ++    revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen frequently on a
       	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
       	<<def_repository,repository>>.
     + 

 Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Sorry but I am not @Junio.

Hmph, I sense a broken indentation.

I'll fix it up, so no need for resending only to fix this.

Thanks.