Re: bug - Inconsistency of git status and branch, ./git/branches and ./git/HEAD
- From
Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 30, 2023, 11:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPx1GvdNbHFZdDtWh-s6dN52oxV6L2Ww7CV+SAefenkekiOy+A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPx1GvcjvctrQ-w1MekBs7S+R_7=KhCLUQ915-JAnxEq=BE3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
I should note a slight correction here:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 4:28 AM Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com> wrote:
> A new, empty repository cannot have any branches, because a branch > is defined as "the latest commit that is on the branch" (this definition is > unsatisfyingly circular, but that too is what it is).
This is just one of multiple definitions of "branch" in Git. A branch is also a *set* of commits, and/or a *name*. The fact that the word "branch" has so many meanings in Git makes it almost meaningless: it's like being at a party where everyone is named Chris. Yet somehow we humans still manage to extract meaning from a sentence like "Hey Chris, Chris said to tell you that Chris can't get Chris's car started, so Chris and Chris won't be here."
Chris