Skip to content

Commit 64d1bdc

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #785 from stepnem/rn124copyedit
minor copy edit
2 parents 1150510 + e59c9f0 commit 64d1bdc

File tree

1 file changed

+10
-10
lines changed

1 file changed

+10
-10
lines changed

rev_news/drafts/edition-124.md

Lines changed: 10 additions & 10 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ were with [VonC in edition 106][vonc] and [Chris Torek in edition 120][torek]._
157157
I started using RCS on my Unix box for tracking the local version of files
158158
and avoiding bad surprises, and since then I’ve seen so many so-called
159159
revolutions of the version control that promised “the moon” but ended up
160-
creating yet another commercial silos. To name a few, consider
160+
creating yet another commercial silo. To name a few, consider
161161
[Rational ClearCase][clearcase] and [Perforce][perforce], and the legacy
162162
they have made for the software industry.
163163

@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ were with [VonC in edition 106][vonc] and [Chris Torek in edition 120][torek]._
167167
forever as-is, even though it would be difficult to imagine an
168168
Open-Source project starting today not using Git as version control.
169169

170-
But if you roll back to the year 2000s, you could have swapped Microsoft
170+
But if you roll back to the year 2000, you could have swapped Microsoft
171171
with VA Software and Git with Subversion, and asked the same question:
172172
_`“What version control and hosting site should a new Open-Source project
173173
use?”_ I believe the answer would differ significantly from the one you
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ were with [VonC in edition 106][vonc] and [Chris Torek in edition 120][torek]._
426426

427427
Also, my unfortunate mistake highlighted the resilience of the
428428
Git repository model, where there isn’t a “single source of truth”
429-
and GitHub’s repository is just “one of the repositories peers
429+
and GitHub’s repository is just “one of the peer repositories
430430
around the globe. You can always recover from any type of damage
431431
with Git, at least from what I’ve seen in my 15 years of
432432
contributing and using it with real-life large-scale repositories
@@ -548,16 +548,16 @@ __Light reading__
548548
to a 15-year-old Git function and fixed it.
549549
+ [Working with stacked branches in git (part 2)](https://andrewlock.net/working-with-stacked-branches-in-git-part-2/)
550550
by Andrew Lock on his blog, \.NET Escapades, continues where
551-
[Working with stacked branches](https://andrewlock.net/working-with-stacked-branches-in-git-is-easier-with-update-refs/) left
552-
(which was mentioned in [Git Rev News Edition #93](https://git.github.io/rev_news/2022/11/30/edition-93/))
551+
[Working with stacked branches](https://andrewlock.net/working-with-stacked-branches-in-git-is-easier-with-update-refs/)
552+
(mentioned in [Git Rev News Edition #93](https://git.github.io/rev_news/2022/11/30/edition-93/)) left off.
553553
+ [Git: please stop squash merging!](https://lucasoshiro.github.io/posts-en/2024-04-08-please_dont_squash/)
554554
and [Git: the danger of squash merging submodules](https://lucasoshiro.github.io/posts-en/2024-06-27-squash-submodule/)
555555
by Lucas Seiki Oshiro on his GitHub Pages-powered personal blog.
556556
+ The first of those blog posts mentions
557557
[Squash commits considered harmful](https://dev.to/wesen/squash-commits-considered-harmful-ob1) by Manuel Odendahl and
558558
[Squash merges are evil](https://medium.com/bananatag-engineering-blog/squash-merges-are-evil-171f55139c51) by L. Holanda.
559-
+ See for example [Combining branches](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/0fe7c7bd-b762-453f-bac7-ed2e34d44ba0.png) (PNG)
560-
comic by Julia Evans (@b0rk) about differences between merge, rebase, and squash merge.
559+
+ See the [Combining branches](https://wizardzines.com/comics/combining-branches/)
560+
comic by Julia Evans (@b0rk) for an explanation about the differences between merge, rebase, and squash merge.
561561
+ [Cleaning up gone branches](https://haacked.com/archive/2025/04/17/git-gone/)
562562
by Phil Haack on his You've Been Haacked blog.
563563
Describes how to delete all the branches that have been merged into the default branch,
@@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ __Light reading__
572572
and other posts at <https://stolee.dev/>.
573573
+ [Git Branch Manager: a manager for git branches](https://daveschumaker.net/git-branch-manager-a-manager-for-git-branches/)
574574
by Dave Schumaker on his blog,
575-
describes how he created [Git Branch Manager](https://github.com/daveschumaker/gbm)
575+
describes how he created the [Git Branch Manager](https://github.com/daveschumaker/gbm)
576576
tool by "vibe coding" with Claude Code. The 'P.S.' part just kills it...
577577
+ [no more gitmojis](https://kjelsrud.dev/blog/no-more-gitmojis/)
578578
on Sids' blog; moving from [gitmojis](https://gitmoji.dev/)
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ __Light reading__
595595
[Gitmoji](https://gitmoji.dev/),
596596
[Problem/Solution format](https://zeromq.org/how-to-contribute/#write-good-commit-messages) used by ZeroMQ, and
597597
[Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by: trailers](https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by)
598-
used by Linux kernel.
598+
used by Linux kernel developers.
599599
+ [The history of change-packing tools at Microsoft (so far)](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180122-00/)
600600
by Raymond Chen on Microsoft Dev Blogs: The Old New Thing (2018).<br>
601601
Change-packing is a way to save a whole changeset or commit to a single file,
@@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ __Scientific papers__
624624
__Git tools and sites__
625625
+ [GetHooky](https://ezpieco.github.io/GetHooky/) is a simple git hook manager for everyone.
626626
Inspired by [Husky](https://typicode.github.io/husky/),
627-
but is a CLI tool, thus works for every stack.
627+
but a CLI tool, thus works for every stack.
628628
Written in Go, under MIT license.
629629
+ [Husky](https://github.com/typicode/husky), a Git hook management tool, was first mentioned in
630630
[Git Rev News Edition #63](https://git.github.io/rev_news/2020/05/28/edition-63/);

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)