From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB96F1F4F8 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752952AbcJGLpi (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 07:45:38 -0400 Received: from mail.javad.com ([54.86.164.124]:58077 "EHLO mail.javad.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752704AbcJGLpg (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 07:45:36 -0400 Received: from osv (unknown [89.175.180.246]) by mail.javad.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DB52633DB; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from osv by osv with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bsTao-0005bx-0l; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:45:34 +0300 From: Sergey Organov To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Documentation/git-merge.txt: get rid of irrelevant references to git-pull References: <87shsapjiz.fsf@javad.com> <87h98pps7a.fsf@javad.com> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:45:33 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:06:04 -0700") Message-ID: <87mvigmlgi.fsf@javad.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> Ah, I now see. I tried to keep the text intact as much as possible, and >> only split it into description and a note. Well, how about this then: > > Much better than your earlier patch, but I am not sure if the > updated one is that much better compared to the original. It's not intended to be much better. It is aimed at single simple target: get rid of git-pull from descriptions of operations of git-merge. I'd just remove those git-pull reference, the only one that is left after the patch, but it looks like git-merge needs an excuse to have fast-forward on by default, and that excuse is the common git-pull case. [I'd prefer 'git-merge --ff' were called from 'git-pull' and --no-ff be the default for git-merge, but that's not the case, so I left the reference to git-pull intact.] > > The pre- and post- state of this "how about this" patch essentially > say the same thing, and I suspect that the primary reason why you > think the post- state is easier to read is because you wrote it, > while the reason why I do not see much difference is because I > didn't write the updated one ;-). > > I do find "In this case, ... store the combined history" in the > original a bit awkward to read, but most of that awkardness is > inherited by the updated text. It may benefit from hinting why a > new commit is not needed a bit stronger. Here is my attempt: > > When the commit we are merging is a descendant of the current > HEAD, the history leading to the named commit can be, and by > default is, taken as the combined history of the two. Our > history is "fast forwarded" to their history by updating `HEAD` > along with the index to point at the named commit. > > This often happens when you are following along somebody else's > work via "git pull" without doing your own development. > > I think the awkwardness I felt in the original and your version is > gone from the above attempt, but I doubt that it is better over > either of them in any other way. This is entirely different matter, and should be a subject of another patch, if any. My patch meant to only address git-pull references, with as few changes as possible. -- Sergey