Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: A few minor copy edits.

From: Štěpán Němec <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:43:17 +0200

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:32:05 -0700
Junio C. Hamano wrote:

> Thanks.  All looked reasonable, except that I've heard nobody says
> "ent" for the past couple of years, and it might be better to drop
> the entry altogether.

Yeah, I have no real opinion here. I've never been a Tolkien fan, so I
had no idea what "ent" even means, let alone its connection to anything
Git-related (which is why the glossary entry caught my eye in the first
place). I found it amusing and that's all; maybe other Git oldtimers
have some kind of personal attachment to it?

I have to admit that I don't remember seeing the word in any of various
Git-related texts or discussions I've read in past ~3 years, so I agree
its educative value is probably dubious nowadays. OTOH it's just a
couple lines, _and_ amusing... ;-)

I'll resend the patch with the entry removed if no break-through occurs
during the next few days.

>> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> index 3595b58..f928b57 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ to point at the new commit.
>>  
>>  [[def_ent]]ent::
>>  	Favorite synonym to "<<def_tree-ish,tree-ish>>" by some total geeks. See
>> -	`http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ent_(Middle-earth)` for an in-depth
>> +	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ent_(Middle-earth) for an in-depth
>>  	explanation. Avoid this term, not to confuse people.
>>  
>>  [[def_evil_merge]]evil merge::

-- 
Štěpán