Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull

[Sergey Organov]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Sergey Organov <address@hidden>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:59:51 +0300
>> 
>> My point is that once you send "branch" to a Git command
>
> You don't send a branch to Git commands, you send the branch's
> _label_, or _name_. Let's distinguish between the thing and its name,
> okay?

Yes, you send a _name_. It does not represent "branch" the "active line
of development" though. It just points to particular commit.

>
>> Git itself has no "branches" that are "active lines of development"
>> in its data model.
>
> Git might not have it, but we its users do.

You are welcome to have them. In your mind. This won't help you to
understand Git better. It's the latter that I've tried to help to
achieve. Sorry if I failed.

>
>> Understanding this makes it clear why you need to say something like this:
>> 
>> $ git log --source emacs-24 origin/master
>>
>> to get "list of commits with branch names", where:
>
> What's to understand?

Why it is not:

$ git log --show-branch-names emacs-24 origin/master

> a branch name in this context represents its last commit, a.k.a.
> "tip".That's all. Why are you trying to make this more confusing than
> it should be?

My point is that branch name doesn't represent anything else but
particular reference to particular commit in Git.

>>        --source
>>            Print out the ref name given on the command line by which each
>>            commit was reached.
>> 
>> Please notice no "branch" in the description of the "--source"
>
> I'd suggest not to treat Git docs as a kind of "holy scripture" whose
> exact wording has any magic meaning beyond what meets the eye. Don't
> look for some deep meaning in the words used there, because more often
> than not there isn't any.

The description in the docs is very exact. Sorry you don't see it, that
means I'm not very good at explaining it indeed.

BTW, Emacs docs are no less a "holy scripture" as well, until you start
to at least remotely understand the whole picture.

>
>> Kinda like "everything is a buffer" in Emacs.
>
> But everything is not a buffer in Emacs.  There are other objects as
> well, most of them quite different from buffers.

Sure, there are other objects but refs in Git as well, but all the refs
are as similar as possible, be them branches or not.

-- 
Sergey.