From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:05:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] glossary: define committish (a.k.a. commit-ish)
Message-ID: <7vtxktyfo1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51C203A1.4000404@bbn.com>

Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com> writes:

> 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.