Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect wording in git-merge.txt.

[Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>]

Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
>> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
>>
>>> You don't really merge a commit _object_.
>>> You merge with one or more other commits, tipycally identified by a 
>>> branch name or a tag.
>> Strictly speaking, you can merge any commit, not necessarily a branch
>> or a tag. That can be "git merge 66f0a4d" or whatever. Admitedly, the
>> common case is to merge a tag or a branch (which is why I keep it in
>> parentheses).
> 
> Yes, and I've been meaning the same all along.
> 
>> Now, I don't understand the distinction you seem to be making between
>> "commit" and "commit object".
> 
> Objects are what the low level storage is made of.  Conceptually, The 
> merge operation doesn't work at the object level, but rather at the 
> history graph level.  You don't merge objects, you merge history.
> I think it is unnecessary and probably best not to 
> mention the word "object" in this case.
> 
> The alternative is to provide more detailed explanation, such as:
> 
>    A merge is made by joining one or more history line to the current 
>    'HEAD' branch.  Those history lines are denoted by their terminating 
>    commit.  To identify them, the SHA1 name of the corresponding commit 
>    object is used, or more frequently the name of the branch or tag 
>    currently pointing at such commit objects.
> 

"... The SHA1 name or, more frequently, branch- or tag-names currently
pointing to such commits are used to identify them."

commit object = meta-data containing author/committer info, one or more
                parent links and a tree object describing the state of
                the tracked content

commit = A particular point in history.

At least afaiu.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231