Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > We do not only want commit objects. It is totally legitimate to ask > > git merge-base HEAD v2.25.0 > > (v2.25.0 is of course not a commit, it is a tag that _refers_ to a > commit.) I meant to say (and was expecting those who know to know) committish, of course. > Earlier, we would probably have called this a "commit-ish", but since > users got so confused by this instance of Git Speak (is my interpretation > of the reason, at least), we tend to call them "revs" these days. I am not among that "we". "rev" is an older and even more nerdy Git speak that was invented back when Linus was active, and as you can see, we used the word to mean not just commit or commit-ish, but anything that can be turned into an object name (you'd realize that you know it already, when you think about what 'rev' means in "git rev-parse"). The phrase *-ish came much later (I think I was among those who started it).
