Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Anyway, can we agree, that there are people who (mistakenly) > > use/understand "branch" as including the objects? > > Enough people to call it a "common mistake". > > If so, then we should not ignore this. > > I do not think it is a mistake at all. In a history where the > branch B points at commit Z, we do say the branch contains commits Z > and Y and we do say the branch does not contain commits X or W, for > example. > > W---X > / > ---o---V---Y---Z > ^ we're here (branch B) > There's a difference between saying the branch *is* commits A, B, ... Y, Z, and the branch *contains* commits ... In Git only the latter is true, because technically the branch is a pointer. But in Mercurial both are true. > I think the source of the confusion is the <start point>. It does > not change what the explanation wants to say at all if we changed > it to <end point>. It is where the branch's tip ends up to be after > "git branch -f" (or "git switch -C") finishes, so it might even be > technically more correct. Indeed. However, there's a better alternative than "end point": head. Sure, the unfortunate naming of the current branch as HEAD makes this slightly confusing, but that's really what it is. If you change the branch head *everyone* understands the the branch itself is changed, and the commits that are part of the branch are different. -- Felipe Contreras
