Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 2, 2010, 00:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk4uwmp95.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <ron1-9A9CEA.16452601022010@news.gmane.org>
Ron Garret <ron1@flownet.com> writes:
> The manual specifically contradicts you, so either you are wrong or the > manual is wrong.
In case you haven't noticed, Pasky is one of the old timers and he knows a thing or two about the git's world model.
And I do not see a contradiction in what the manual describes and "a branch is a named pointer to a commit" (although "named" can probably be omitted as "unnamed pointer" is not useful at the UI level).