3 ms·
That term makes sense. But just as you wouldn't call a symlink to a zip archive a zip file itself, you also shouldn't call a branch a ref.
by y4mi 9y ago
That term makes sense.
But just as you wouldn't call a symlink to a zip archive a zip file itself, you also shouldn't call a branch a ref.
- cup-of-tea 9y agoSo would you rather say a branch is a commit?
- y4mi 9y agoA branch is a pointer or symlink if you will.
- rantanplan 9y agoBut it is a ref. It's an alias for the last commit of a particular timeline, as I said above.
- friend-monoid 9y agoHrm, but a ref is a file containing a hash, right? So if the hash is equivalent to the file, the surely a ref is equivalent to a symlink? A symbolic ref, in turn, should be a symlink to a symlink... Or something like that...
- y4mi 9y agoA ref points to an object. That object doesn't change unless the hashing algo was tricked. A branch points to anything you want it to point to. It can be any ref you want and can be changed at will.
- friend-monoid 9y agosha1 - object (e.g. 5a480efb...) file with sha1 - ref (e.g. master) file with ref - symbolic ref (e.g. HEAD) right? Seeing as you can git update-ref branches, but you need to git symbolic-ref HEAD.