From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87mw7qnbaf.fsf@zigzag.favinet> References: <20141114120604.GA3859@acm.acm> <87389mkjwo.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> <20141114141434.GM3565@embecosm.com> <20141114180521.GA3168@acm.acm> <20141114230235.GF3168@acm.acm> <87r3x3mg5t.fsf@zigzag.favinet> <838ujbdup2.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416169278 8726 80.91.229.3 (16 Nov 2014 20:21:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:21:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 16 21:21:11 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 1Xq6Jq-0003XL-68 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:21:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45019 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq6Jp-00023Y-Oy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:21:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq6Jg-00023C-JZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:21:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq6Ja-00015i-MN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:21:00 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp209.alice.it ([82.57.200.105]:16503) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq6Ja-00015S-B5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:20:54 -0500 Original-Received: from zigzag.favinet (79.21.65.142) by smtp209.alice.it (8.6.060.28) id 5440EFA2061ADE19 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:20:53 +0100 Original-Received: from ttn by zigzag.favinet with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq6Nf-0000jL-BS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:25:07 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <838ujbdup2.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:35:53 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 82.57.200.105 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:177359 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable () Eli Zaretskii () Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:35:53 +0200 This is a red herring. You are confusing the concept of a "branch" with the Git implementation of branches. Maybe. The implementation is a label, but "branch" the concept is the set of commits reachable from the branch tip, in Git as in any other VCS. Unfortunately, i get the impression from the few Git manpages i've really read thoroughly that the clean distinction between "branch" the concept and "branch" the user-facing specification for a DAG vertex is not very important. Unlike what you wrote, the revision history is conceptually _always_ a DAG, even in RCS. I'm sorry i gave that impression; at the conceptual level i agree that all these systems manipulate DAGs. My point was to deconstruct (a bit) the different ways vertex/edge information can be divvied, mainly to suggest that over-attachment to one or another "branch" concept is a good place to apply awareness hacking. > It "knows" it, sure, but if the way it knows it and the > way you think it knows it differ, you will remain > confused. You are in fact saying that it is impossible for a Git newbie to grasp the basic concepts and do any useful work without a detailed understanding of the internals. That's a valid interpretation, i suppose, in which case... I don't think it's true. i would agree. However, it's not the only one. Generally, i think even the newest of newbies benefits from separating the applicable from the inapplicable baggage carried into any new effort. Here, as elaborated (and nicely compared to Emacs) by dak, there is also the opportunity (or needless pain, YMMV) for users to touch some fundamental data structures and algorithms, or at least to enjoy (or suffer) their touchings and teachings by some real experts. That these experts could not maintain the putative distinction between "plumbing" and "porcelain" is perhaps less a failing on their part and more indicative of the strength of the underlying data model. Anyway, i don't argue that the word "branch" is well suited for the concept of "vertex label". It is, by now, historical. Same logic is why we talk about CAR and CDR, half a century on. The only difference is that "branch" is a pre-existing word in VCS, CS, biology, etc. Unfortunate choice, in hindsight. =2D-=20 Thien-Thi Nguyen GPG key: 4C807502 (if you're human and you know it) read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical) (not (via 'mailing-list))) =3D> nil --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlRpCBwACgkQZwMiJEyAdQIv9ACfUGmZo8vDAm2BrqIYeqlCSuzG 19AAn0l6+VmoPrv3edi7xHRiUz1M90CF =7yJ/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--