Richard Hansen <rhansen@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 2013-06-19 13:14, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> <object-type>-ish does not have anything to do with a ref. Even >> when an object is dangling in your object store without being >> reachable from any of your refs, it keeps its own "ish"-ness. > > Ah, so your personal definition of "ref" matches my personal definition > of "ref", and this definition doesn't match gitglossary(7). :) Huh? The only thing I I said was that "*-ish" does not have anything to do with a ref. I didn't say anything about definition of "ref". You are the one who brought "ref" into description of *-ish, with this: > +[[def_committish]]committish (also commit-ish):: > + A <<def_ref,ref>> pointing to an <<def_object,object>> that > + can be recursively dereferenced to a All I am saying is that an object does not have to be pointed by any ref to be any-ish. ish-ness is an attribute of an object, not an ref. You do not say refs/heads/master (which is a ref) is a commit-ish or a tree-ish. The object pointed at by that ref is always a commit and is a commit-ish and a tree-ish. -- 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