What's the distinction between '[interacting] with the files in a git repo' and 'just using git for source control'? To be clear I didn't say a branch isn't a

What's the distinction between '[interacting] with the files in a git repo' and 'just using git for source control'? To be clear I didn't say a branch isn't a named sequence of commits! I said it's a named ref to what is already a sequence of commits. I think people should understand their tools - not the internals/implementation detail (necessarily), just how to use them effectively. Today I had some post-incident reverting to do, and it was complicated by hairy merges, poor commit messages ('what' not why/the context), poor commit stucture & history, etc. And I'm sick of CI pipelines called 'Merge branch master of <remote url>' on the master branch (from doing merge-pulls of origin/master having committed to master locally - `git config pull.rebase true` if you're going to do that) - tells you absolutely nothing about the change that's actually building (because it's parent 1, not the commit itself or the merged parent 2) and causes a snaking history on master (flipping parents 1 & 2 every time someone does it). It's like a builder/'handiman' using a combi-drill day in day out in drill mode, using it for masonry & screws too, but not caring to realise the hammer & driver modes exist.