From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:14:36 +0200 Message-ID: <83mw7n6j83.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20141114180521.GA3168@acm.acm> <20141114230235.GF3168@acm.acm> <20141117141123.GA4294@acm.acm> <83lhn89zxn.fsf@gnu.org> <83bno49xtw.fsf@gnu.org> <20141118224326.GA5167@acm.acm> <87mw7n8k0f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <837fyr88mc.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4r76n86.fsf@gnu.org> <87k32rgdm4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416428110 21612 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2014 20:15:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 21:15:03 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrBeZ-0007y6-Dw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:15:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60503 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrBeZ-00082Z-0c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:15:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrBeQ-000824-AU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:15:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrBeK-0002cQ-5S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:14:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:39328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrBeD-0002VO-PS; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:14:41 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NFA00M00YE8B000@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:14:39 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NFA00MR1YWF9J60@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:14:39 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87k32rgdm4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177813 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:05:39 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Sergey Organov > > > >> The above is an abstraction built on top of Git's idea of > >> branch. One can get a chain of commits from Git DAG starting at > >> branch 'foo' and call the result "branch foo", if it suits > >> him. Moreover, he can do this from any reference, even from SHA1. If > >> I get the same chain of commits from branch 'foo' and from commit > >> AF03276BC, is it the same branch? Is SHA1 a branch? Is Git tag a > >> branch? Why? > > > > As I already said elsewhere, you seem to have a serious problem > > distinguishing the name of a thing from the thing itself. > > You'll find that you can delete a branch, and not more than its name > will disappear. If you _afterwards_ make another branch tip refer to > the same commit id that the old branch tip had, that branch will work > perfectly well. > > So did I delete the branch or not? You didn't. You deleted its name. > What branch were the commits on after the old branch was deleted and > before the new one was created? Same one. The branch wasn't deleted. > I can also do something like > > git branch woozle hephalump > > and create a branch woozle which is, for all intents and purposes, > equivalent to the branch hephalump. A thing can have more than one name. > But no commits were created in the process of creating this new > branch. You didn't create a branch, you added another name for an existing branch. > So what branch are the shared commits on now if they have to be "on > a branch"? You now have a branch with 2 names, that's all. > Branches are ephemeral, the commit graph is static. Equating the two > will not do your understanding favors. Didn't expect to hear this from you. Others, yes, but not you.