Thanks for the explanation. I don't think it's a good idea, but it does clarify some things. In git, a branch is a branch by virtue of being an actual physical

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think it's a good idea, but it does clarify some things. In git, a branch is a branch by virtue of being an actual physical branch in the data structure. To elaborate, I think a branch having multiple heads is not really a good thing, since that leads to the actual structure being one or more branches (each point of divergence results in a branch in the commit lineage), but only one name to refer to the collection of commits making up those branches. That abstraction doesn't agree with me. Since a branch (a lineage of commits) is unambiguously defined by its head commit, having a named ref as the branch abstraction makes more sense to me. I don't know how it could be any simpler.