W dniu 29.08.2016 o 15:21, Philip Oakley pisze: > From: "Jakub Narębski" <jna...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 2:01 PM >> W dniu 12.08.2016 o 09:07, Philip Oakley pisze: [...]
>>> +For these commands, >>> +specifying a single revision, using the notation described in the >>> +previous section, means the set of commits `reachable` from the given >>> +commit. [...] >>> + >>> +A commit's reachable set is the commit itself and the commits in >>> +its ancestry chain. >>> + >> >> It is all right, but perhaps it would be better to just repeat: >> >> +Set of commits reachable from given commit is the commit itself >> +and all the commits in its ancestry chain. > > It's very easy to go around in circles here. The original issue was > the A..B notation for the case where A is a direct descendant of B, > such that new users, or users more familiar with range notations from > elsewhere, would expect that the A..B range is *inclusive*, rather > than an open / closed interval. It was the addressing of that problem > that lead to the updating of the 'reachability' definition. All right, I can see that. It is a worthwhile goal. > The main part of my sentence formation was to make the 'reachable' > part the defining element, rather than being a feature of the set. > Maybe it's using the 'set' viewpoint that is distracting?>> One one hand, the "A commit's reachable set is ..." approach puts 'reachable' upfront. On the other hand it introduces new terminology, namely 'reachable set' (or 'reachable set of a commit' to be more exact)... it doesn't read that well to me, but I am not a native speaker. But as I wrote, this is quite all right anyway -- Jakub Narębski
