> That's my only explanation for why someone would say "at the user interface level, Git stores snapshots" when the interface is, i think clearly, mostly about

> That's my only explanation for why someone would say "at the user interface level, Git stores snapshots" when the interface is, i think clearly, mostly about working with commits as changes. That's what the documentation says, no need to assume a conspiracy. I don't know on what authority you claim to know better, you haven't cited anything. > About what, exactly? As far as i know, what i wrote is factually accurate (or an opinion, which can not be wrong). Opinions about facts can be wrong. I've cited the source, maybe you have a better one than the official documentation, but you haven't given it. > Yes, the git manual writes about snapshots, because it's literally true (and sometimes necessary to understand), but it also repeatedly refers to commits as changes But it doesn't. Again, you didn't cite anything. Conceptually, and in the documentation, changes are always something that's computed after the fact. I've triple checked just now, the official documentation always talks about the changes between commits, or the change introduced by a commit (which means the changes to the parent commit) -- that's fine and in fact exactly the point. It never uses "commit" as a synonym for "change", or claims that a commit somehow stores a change.