Fixing wrong wording for source branch

[daniel-sc]

No description provided.

[robertodr]

Thanks for your PR. I agree that the wording here is confusing and should be changed. We meant that whereas you need to have the PR from any fork based off the target branch, you should commit your work to a separate branch, as to avoid the scenario documented here

This is what we had in mind. Say you are working on a new feature that should land on master:

1. You create a fork of the canonical repo.
2. You branch off of master the branch new-feature.
3. Commit to new-feature and push.
4. Open a PR. This will target canonical:master from your-fork:new-feature rather than being canonical:master from your-fork:master.

[daniel-sc]

I understand, probably one should clarify that

1. The new branch should start off from the target branch.
2. The naming of the new branch should follow feature/issue branch naming conventions.

Would this distinction bewteen naming and starting point resolve this ambiguity?

[robertodr]

Yes, that would do it, in conjunction with a link to that blog posts which explains why creating a new branch is a good idea.

[robertodr]

Thank you! Waiting for @bast to also read through the change before merging.

[bast]

Thanks so much!