David Kågedal wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
>> So from the user's point of view, 'branch' is simply _named line of
>> development_. Refer to topic and tracking branches.
>
> But the definition of 'branch' in git is quite different from the
> definition in CVS or many other systems. It CVS, each revision
> (commit) belongs to a branch, and the branch is a linear sequence of
> revisions, not a full DAG. In git, a commit doesn't really "belong"
> in any specific branch.
>
> So, while it makes sense to describe branches as "lines of
> development" in general terms, it is also important to note the
> specific meaning of 'branch' in the context of git; i.e. as the
> history of a single head commit.
We can always say that branch is 1-st parent linear history of head branch,
up to unmarked but computable branching/fork/creation point, i.e.
{i = 0..N: branch-head~i}
where N is the length of the branch.
BTW. HEAD~0 == HEAD, isn't it?
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html