From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!? Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:27:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20100203182734.GA12551@fieldses.org> References: <87aavsu9b3.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <7vwrywplxz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100202001530.GL9553@machine.or.cz> <7vk4uwmp95.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100202191942.GB9628@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ron Garret X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 03 19:27:42 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ncjwy-0006Dg-6k for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756619Ab0BCS1Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:27:24 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:41364 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756191Ab0BCS1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:27:23 -0500 Received: from bfields by fieldses.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ncjws-0003LY-Pi; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:27:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:04:22PM -0800, Ron Garret wrote: > In article <20100202191942.GB9628@fieldses.org>, > "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > > My memory is that I'd seen the word "branch" used for both meanings (a > > linear piece of history, and a ref under ref/heads/), so figured we > > needed terms for both. > > > > But then I didn't really use that distinction anywhere. On a quick skim > > the only instance I can see of the first sense is in > > http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git-core/docs/user-manual.html#counting-com > > mits-on-a-branch, > > which could probably be reworded. > > > > It still may be worth acknowledging the confusion; e.g., something like: > > > > In the above diagram, "A", "B", and "master" are all references > > to a point in history. We call all three "branches". > > > > Informally, the word "branch" is sometimes also used to the > > entire line of development leading up to one of these points, > > or, more generally, to any individual line of development. But > > when speaking about git, a "branch" (or "branch head") will > > always be a reference to a point in history, and in particular a > > reference which may be advanced to new commits by future > > development. > > > > Eh, I don't know if that's helpful; maybe that section could just be > > deleted. Or replaced by a more general discusion of the ref/ namespace. > > FWIW, I find the above verbiage to to be very clear, much better than > what is there now. You might also add that branches are almost exactly > the same as tags. The only difference (AFAIK) is that tags get dragged > along by commits and resets and tags don't. Might also be worth considering whether this: http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git-core/docs/user-manual.html#how-git-stores-references or some other general introduction to refs, should be moved to appear earlier in the manual. Apologies, though, I can't volunteer for now; if you'd like any of this to happen, I'd recommend sending Junio patches. (I'll try to read them if you cc: me.) --b.