From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:05:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect wording in git-merge.txt. Message-ID: <47D62F4F.8050106@op5.se> In-Reply-To: Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Nicolas Pitre writes: >> >>> You don't really merge a commit _object_. >>> You merge with one or more other commits, tipycally identified by a >>> branch name or a tag. >> Strictly speaking, you can merge any commit, not necessarily a branch >> or a tag. That can be "git merge 66f0a4d" or whatever. Admitedly, the >> common case is to merge a tag or a branch (which is why I keep it in >> parentheses). > > Yes, and I've been meaning the same all along. > >> 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. You don't merge objects, you merge history. > I think it is unnecessary and probably best not to > mention the word "object" in this case. > > The alternative is to provide more detailed explanation, such as: > > A merge is made by joining one or more history line to the current > 'HEAD' branch. Those history lines are denoted by their terminating > commit. To identify them, the SHA1 name of the corresponding commit > object is used, or more frequently the name of the branch or tag > currently pointing at such commit objects. > "... The SHA1 name or, more frequently, branch- or tag-names currently pointing to such commits are used to identify them." commit object = meta-data containing author/committer info, one or more parent links and a tree object describing the state of the tracked content commit = A particular point in history. At least afaiu. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231