Re: VC mode and git

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Sergey Organov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 00:40:58 +0300
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > It's for Alan to say if it's more helpful than saying that a merge is
> > "just a commit".
> 
> You are putting words into (my?) mouth. Nobody ever said that merge, the
> operation, is just a commit, AFAIR. If you indeed meant me, that's what
> I said:
> 
>      After true merge operation is finished, the only result of it is
>      single commit appended to your current branch. Git /is/ that
>      simple. All the possible complexity is in the stage of content
>      preparation for this commit.
> 
> I fail to see how this could be taken as saying that merge is just a
> commit. What I wanted to tell /you/, not /Alan/, is that there is no any
> hidden meta-information or other mysteries involved.

It was a long sub-thread, so I can understand how you could forget
what started it.  Let me remind you:

You:

> >> "Incorporates changes from the named commits (since the time their
> >> histories diverged from the current branch) into the current branch."

Me:

> > Good luck understanding this when learning what merge does in Git!
> > Starting from the "branch" thingy, which, as you will read everywhere
> > is just a pointer to the HEAD commit.  So what does it mean to
> > "incorporate changes in the current branch", if the branch is just a
> > pointer?

You:

> Yes, a pointer that moves to point to new commit automatically every
> time you commit on the branch. Incorporating changes means the same
> thing every time: commit. What's new or unusual about it?

Which I interpreted as you saying that a merge "means" ("is") "just a
commit", like every other commit.  That simplification seemed
unhelpful to me, because it ducks the real question of what happens
_during_ the merge, thus failing to answer that question, and instead
tells something like "what you are asking about has a very simple
answer", with the sub-text of "it's clear to everyone else".  Not
helpful, since the original question is left unanswered, and the OP is
now left to wonder what is it that he's missing that is clear to
everyone else.  IOW, you effectively answered a question of a newbie
with a riddle he is challenged to solve in order to prove that he is
as a smart as everybody else.  Does this strike you as a good
educational tactics in this case?

The fact that you replied to my messages is irrelevant, because this
is a public list with everyone reading it.  Discussion of a question
someone asked should certainly keep that someone in mind as being a
participant, albeit passive, in the discussion.  IOW, you are still
answering his question, even if replying to someone else.