mbox series

[0/3] Documentation: change "folder" to "directory"

Message ID cover.1635094161.git.martin.agren@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Documentation: change "folder" to "directory" | expand

Message

Martin Ågren Oct. 24, 2021, 5:09 p.m. UTC
It is my understanding that we prefer "directory" over "folder" when
discussing the file system concept. (Whereas "folder" is commonly used
for the GUI view of such a directory, or for an IMAP folder.)

I stumbled on a mention of the ".git folder" when going through the
doc-diff between v2.33.0 and 9d530dc002 ("The fourteenth batch",
2021-10-18), and started looking around. This series is the outcome.

Based on master.

Martin Ågren (3):
  git-multi-pack-index.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
  gitignore.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
  gitweb.txt: change "folder" to "directory"

 Documentation/git-multi-pack-index.txt | 6 +++---
 Documentation/gitignore.txt            | 2 +-
 Documentation/gitweb.txt               | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Bagas Sanjaya Oct. 25, 2021, 9:19 a.m. UTC | #1
On 25/10/21 00.09, Martin Ågren wrote:
> It is my understanding that we prefer "directory" over "folder" when
> discussing the file system concept. (Whereas "folder" is commonly used
> for the GUI view of such a directory, or for an IMAP folder.)
> 
> I stumbled on a mention of the ".git folder" when going through the
> doc-diff between v2.33.0 and 9d530dc002 ("The fourteenth batch",
> 2021-10-18), and started looking around. This series is the outcome.
> 
> Based on master.
> 
> Martin Ågren (3):
>    git-multi-pack-index.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
>    gitignore.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
>    gitweb.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
> 

The same logical change over three patches, why aren't they be squashed 
into single commit?
Derrick Stolee Oct. 25, 2021, 3:31 p.m. UTC | #2
On 10/24/2021 1:09 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> It is my understanding that we prefer "directory" over "folder" when
> discussing the file system concept. (Whereas "folder" is commonly used
> for the GUI view of such a directory, or for an IMAP folder.)
> 
> I stumbled on a mention of the ".git folder" when going through the
> doc-diff between v2.33.0 and 9d530dc002 ("The fourteenth batch",
> 2021-10-18), and started looking around. This series is the outcome.

Thanks for these changes, in particular for the ones that I had
introduced in git-multi-pack-index.txt.

Thanks,
-Stolee
Junio C Hamano Oct. 25, 2021, 6:08 p.m. UTC | #3
Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes:

> It is my understanding that we prefer "directory" over "folder" when
> discussing the file system concept. (Whereas "folder" is commonly used
> for the GUI view of such a directory, or for an IMAP folder.)
>
> I stumbled on a mention of the ".git folder" when going through the
> doc-diff between v2.33.0 and 9d530dc002 ("The fourteenth batch",
> 2021-10-18), and started looking around. This series is the outcome.
>
> Based on master.
>
> Martin Ågren (3):
>   git-multi-pack-index.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
>   gitignore.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
>   gitweb.txt: change "folder" to "directory"

Thanks.  Being consistent is good.

We should have been a bit more careful when we reviewed the changes
that introduced these.
Martin Ågren Oct. 26, 2021, 6:02 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Bagas,

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 11:19, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/10/21 00.09, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > Martin Ågren (3):
> >    git-multi-pack-index.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
> >    gitignore.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
> >    gitweb.txt: change "folder" to "directory"
> >
>
> The same logical change over three patches, why aren't they be squashed
> into single commit?

Old habit, I guess. :) I tend to find that having multiple patches aids
reviewing. Within reason, obviously. Reviewers don't have to go "I agree
with everything except that particular hunk", but can just say "I agree
with everything except patch two", making tracking things a bit easier.

Similarly, if the patches are all independent (albeit being about the
same topic) and it comes up that a particular patch is not such a good
idea after all because reasons, Junio could just decide to apply a
subset and leave the rest. In this case, the commit message of the third
patch assumes that the first two have already been applied, so they're
not completely independent, but that's about the only interdependency
there is in these.

I'm happy to go either way.

Martin
Junio C Hamano Oct. 27, 2021, 6:48 p.m. UTC | #5
Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes:

> Old habit, I guess. :) I tend to find that having multiple patches aids
> reviewing. Within reason, obviously. Reviewers don't have to go "I agree
> with everything except that particular hunk", but can just say "I agree
> with everything except patch two", making tracking things a bit easier.

In this case, changes to three separate files are presented in three
separate patches, which was a quite pleasant read.  I do appreciate
that you said "within reason" ;-)