> I don’t get what is the problem with Git’s concept of branching. It is mutable, yes,
Exactly like a branch on a tree: It's a living thing, that keeps on growing. The word "branch" refers to the whole thing, regardless of where the tip of it has grown to. Utterly intuitive.
And just like branches on trees grow at their tips, the "branch" pointer in git, where you add stuff, is the latest commit. Of course; where else should it grow?
> and commits aren’t somehow marked with the information about what branch it was made on.
Again, exactly like a branch on a tree: Pluck a leaf from it, and there is no sign on it to say which branch it came from. But you can look at any twig or leaf and see what it's attached to, all the way to the trunk, and where it forks off from the trunk is where the branch begins.
(Somewhere along the length of it, you could score the branch name into the bark of the tree... Nah, analogy getting a bit too literal there. But still, totally intuitive.)
Exactly like a branch on a tree: It's a living thing, that keeps on growing. The word "branch" refers to the whole thing, regardless of where the tip of it has grown to. Utterly intuitive.
And just like branches on trees grow at their tips, the "branch" pointer in git, where you add stuff, is the latest commit. Of course; where else should it grow?
> and commits aren’t somehow marked with the information about what branch it was made on.
Again, exactly like a branch on a tree: Pluck a leaf from it, and there is no sign on it to say which branch it came from. But you can look at any twig or leaf and see what it's attached to, all the way to the trunk, and where it forks off from the trunk is where the branch begins.
(Somewhere along the length of it, you could score the branch name into the bark of the tree... Nah, analogy getting a bit too literal there. But still, totally intuitive.)