On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Now, I don't understand the distinction you seem to be making between > >> "commit" and "commit object". > > > > Objects are what the low level storage is made of. Conceptually, The > > merge operation doesn't work at the object level, but rather at the > > history graph level. > > I still don't get the distinction. What is the "graph" if not a set of > objects pointing to each other? > > If you don't want to talk about commit object, then you should fix > also user-manual.txt (for example, it states that a merge "create a > commit object in the history"). > > Well, that said, the same sentence as the one I propose without > "object" is fine to me, but I just don't understand the difference. Sorry. I don't have enough free time to pursue this point, nor do I consider it important enough. So if no one else feels like the distinction deserves to be made then I won't care anymore either. Nicolas -- 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
