Re: [PATCH 2/4] glossary: define committish (a.k.a. commit-ish)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2013, 21:05 UTC
Message-ID: <7vtxktyfo1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51C203A1.4000404@bbn.com>

Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On 2013-06-19 13:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> <object-type>-ish does not have anything to do with a ref.  Even
>> when an object is dangling in your object store without being
>> reachable from any of your refs, it keeps its own "ish"-ness.
>
> Ah, so your personal definition of "ref" matches my personal definition
> of "ref", and this definition doesn't match gitglossary(7).  :)

Huh? The only thing I I said was that "*-ish" does not have anything to do with a ref. I didn't say anything about definition of "ref".

You are the one who brought "ref" into description of *-ish, with this:

> +[[def_committish]]committish (also commit-ish)::
> +	A <<def_ref,ref>> pointing to an <<def_object,object>> that
> +	can be recursively dereferenced to a

All I am saying is that an object does not have to be pointed by any ref to be any-ish. ish-ness is an attribute of an object, not an ref. You do not say refs/heads/master (which is a ref) is a commit-ish or a tree-ish. The object pointed at by that ref is always a commit and is a commit-ish and a tree-ish.