Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:05:39 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> From: Sergey Organov <address@hidden>
> >
> >> The above is an abstraction built on top of Git's idea of
> >> branch. One can get a chain of commits from Git DAG starting at
> >> branch 'foo' and call the result "branch foo", if it suits
> >> him. Moreover, he can do this from any reference, even from SHA1. If
> >> I get the same chain of commits from branch 'foo' and from commit
> >> AF03276BC, is it the same branch? Is SHA1 a branch? Is Git tag a
> >> branch? Why?
> >
> > As I already said elsewhere, you seem to have a serious problem
> > distinguishing the name of a thing from the thing itself.
> 
> You'll find that you can delete a branch, and not more than its name
> will disappear.  If you _afterwards_ make another branch tip refer to
> the same commit id that the old branch tip had, that branch will work
> perfectly well.
> 
> So did I delete the branch or not?

You didn't.  You deleted its name.

> What branch were the commits on after the old branch was deleted and
> before the new one was created?

Same one.  The branch wasn't deleted.

> I can also do something like
> 
> git branch woozle hephalump
> 
> and create a branch woozle which is, for all intents and purposes,
> equivalent to the branch hephalump.

A thing can have more than one name.

> But no commits were created in the process of creating this new
> branch.

You didn't create a branch, you added another name for an existing
branch.

> So what branch are the shared commits on now if they have to be "on
> a branch"?

You now have a branch with 2 names, that's all.

> Branches are ephemeral, the commit graph is static.  Equating the two
> will not do your understanding favors.

Didn't expect to hear this from you.  Others, yes, but not you.