list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Sergey Organov <>
To: Junio C Hamano <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] glossary: improve "branch" definition
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 02:01:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:34:06 -0800")

Junio C Hamano <> writes:

> Sergey Organov <> writes:
>> The old phrasing is at least questionable, if not wrong, as there are
>> a lot of branches out there that didn't see active development for
>> years, yet they are still branches, ready to become active again any
>> time.
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> index 090c888335d3..8bf198e72771 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
>>  	Untyped <<def_object,object>>, e.g. the contents of a file.
>>  [[def_branch]]branch::
>> -	A "branch" is an active line of development.  The most recent
>> +	A "branch" is a separate line of development.  The most recent
> A dormant branch cannot be an "active" line of development, so in
> that sense, the original is wrong.  The description is better
> without the adjective "active".
> But do we need to say "a separate line of development", instead of
> just "a line of development"?  What is "a line of development" that
> is not separate?  What extra pieces of information are we trying to
> convey by having the word "separate" there?

I think it tries to convey a notion that 2 branches represent separate
lines of development. I.e., that the whole purpose of branching is to
provide support for independent, or parallel, or /separate/ lines of

I'm not going to insist on the exact wording though, -- just wanted to
bring attention to the issue, and "separate" was somehow the first word
that came to mind when I edited the text.

As an after-thought, I'd probably add that branch in Git is represented
by a chain of commits, and then I'd refer to most recent commit of the
chain, instead of most recent commit on the branch. That'd make
definition more formal and precise. Makes sense?

-- Sergey Organov

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-23 23:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-23 20:05 Sergey Organov
2020-11-23 22:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-23 23:01   ` Sergey Organov [this message]
2020-11-23 23:26     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-24 22:02       ` Sergey Organov
2020-12-02 11:50       ` Sergey Organov
2020-12-02 22:55         ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-03 13:51           ` Sergey Organov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).