On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:56:31PM -0800, Ron Garret wrote: > In article <7vwrywplxz.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ron Garret <ron1@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > And as long as I'm weighing in, it would also help to prevent confusion > > > if it were made clear that this unnamed branch doesn't actually come > > > into existence unless and until you do a commit. > > > > This shows that you are still thinking a branch is a line (or multiple > > lines). It is not. > > The git user's guide says it is: > > "When we need to be precise, we will use the word "branch" to mean a > line of development..." > > But I understand that a branch is not necessarily a line. In general > it's a DAG. I get that. Again, no. In the most narrow sense, "branch == branch head". Branch is just a pointer. Which is the reason why your original statement does not make sense. We could say that the "branch closure" is the DAG of ancestry of the commit we point to. We use "branch" in that sense since we have to express ourselves in natural language, we are not in a calculus class, there is mapping to various real-world and other-VCS concepts in play, etc. But in order to use "branch" in the ambiguous sense, you should first realize what it means in the _strict_ sense, so that you understand the texts correctly and don't reach wrong conclusions or create invalid concepts like "branches coming into existence". :-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. -- Dunbal (464142) -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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