On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Christian Couder
<christian.cou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov <sorga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
>>> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>>>       "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
>>>       concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
>>>       replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
>>>       merges."
>>> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
>>> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').
>> It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author.
> Yeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to
> "replayed", so I changed it to "replayed". And yeah I can change it to
> something else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers.
>> While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept"
>> by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the
>> algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.
> Ok, it's now "original algorithm".
> Thanks,
> Christian.

Replayed is accurate.


Reply via email to