Re: [PATCH] glossary: improve "branch" definition

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> But do we need to say "a separate line of development", instead of
>>> just "a line of development"?  What is "a line of development" that
>>> is not separate?  What extra pieces of information are we trying to
>>> convey by having the word "separate" there?
>>
>> I think it tries to convey a notion that 2 branches represent separate
>> lines of development. I.e., that the whole purpose of branching is to
>> provide support for independent, or parallel, or /separate/ lines of
>> development.
>
> So in the context of talking about a branch, there is no need to say
> "a separate line".  It only starts making sense to use the word
> "separate" whey you say "this is a line of development.  By the way,
> there is another line of development that is separate from the first
> one".

> In the mental model of Git about branches, I think the only one
> thing people can agree on is that a branch points at a commit, and
> checking it out and making a commit on top of it will change that
> branch to point at the newly created commit.  And this view supports
> the word "separate"---whether you have two branches pointing at the
> same commit or a different one, building a new commit on and
> advancing the tip of one branch does not affect the other branch.