[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081213033443.GP5691@genesis.frugalware.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:34:43 +0100
From: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@...galware.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, git@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplified GIT usage guide
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:12:56AM +0000, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Okay. I do mention tags. How they're stored in the database is irrelevant.
> As far as most users need be concerned, a tag is a symbolic representation of
> a particular commit in the tree; a particular state of the source tree.
Actually I think it matters, that's why a 'tag' differs to a 'tag
object'. Also, a tag can point to any other object, not just to a
commit. (Though usually it does.)
> Think of symbolic links as an analogy. Most users just need to know that a
> symlink represents the location of another part of the VFS tree; actually most
> users will just think of them as a pointer to the name of a file, if even that
> much. The fact that, say, ReiserFS tail packs them because they tend to be
> small, or that AFS symlinks have weird properties that encode mountpoints is
> irrelevant to most users. You don't need to know that to use them.
Won't it be confusing that a symlink can be stored as a blob, tags are
refs, but refs are not blobs?
> Yes, GIT's database has blob objects, tree objects, commit objects and tag
> objects; but as far as the normal user is concerned, it stores files, lists of
> files (directories or, more probably, folders), commits and tags. The
> physical low-level stuff is completely irrelevant.
Agreed, the object database is not interesting for a beginner.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists