Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Documentation/git-merge.txt: improve short description in DESCRIPTION

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:30:57 +0300

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> OK, I see. So, what is the best way to handle this? Immediately follow
>> content change patch with another patch that only re-flows?
>
> Or no reflowing at all.
>
>>> the parents".  I do not know if the updated phrasing is better.  The
>>> "name" in the original was meant to be a short-hand for "object name",
>>> and I would support a change to spell it out to clarify; "reference"
>>> can be a vague word that can mean different things in Git, and when
>>> the word is given without context, most Git people would think that
>>> the word refers to "refs", but that is definitely not what the new
>>> commit records, so...
>>
>> I won't insist on the change, but "name" sounded wrong to me, and
>> "reference" was most general term I was able to come up with in this
>> context.
>> ...
>> Last, if "reference" is not good enough and we get to internals anyway,
>> why not say SHA1 then?
>
> Because that is still colloquial? I think s/name/object name/ is a
> sensible change, but not s/name/reference/.

No, "reference" is more sensible here than any of "name", "object name",
or "SHA-1", the same way as here:

$ git help glossary
[...]
chain
        A list of objects, where each object in the list contains a
        reference to its successor (for example, the successor of a
        commit could be one of its parents).
[...]
$

The resulting merge commit is an origin for 2 chains, so it stores 2
references to its successors. No need to be aware of any [object] names
to understand all this.

-- Sergey