Re: First stab at glossary

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > > [...]
> > Okay for "hash".
> 
> I think we only need at most two names for this, so this is more a matter
> of fixing old usage than documenting it.

It's short enough to keep it in the glossary _and_ fix the old 
documentation.

> > [blabla] index [blable] cache [bliblo]
>
> Well, it often contains information not present anywhere else (the status
> of a merge; the set of files being committed, added, or removed), so it
> isn't really a cache at all.

Okay, okay. I stand corrected.

> > Maybe I was too cautious. Linus very new idea was to think of the lowest
> > level of an SCM as a file system. But I did not want to mention that.
> > Thinking of it again, maybe I should.
> 
> You probably don't need to mention that tree objects and index files can
> be thought of as filesystems, but you should specify that the working tree
> really is in the Unix filesystem, in case people have heard of the idea.
> 
> It should be clear to say 'You can "cd" there and "ls" to list your
> files.', rather than 'Think "ls -laR"' which makes my think of the output,
> which is like the output from git-ls-files.

How about this:

working tree::
        The set of files and directories currently being worked on,
        i.e. you can work in your working tree without using git at all.


> > > > checkout::
> > >
> > > Move after "revision"?
> >
> > Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look
> > at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and
> > marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand
> > how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script.
> 
> Ah, okay.

Sorry, I attributed these "moving suggestions" to the large and angry SCM, 
while those were your comments. Since Junio decided to keep the "topic 
ordered" form in his repository, I moved them around according to your 
mail.

> > > > resolve::
> > > > 	The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge
> > > > 	left behind.
> > >
> > > "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in
> > > "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to
> > > having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be.
> >
> > I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not
> > resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something
> > to resolve.
> 
> Right; I think we should change the name of the script.

How many users are there? Probably many call git-pull-script anyway, 
right?

Ciao,
Dscho