On Dec 10, 9:48 pm, Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The idea is that the "HEAD" is a distinguished reference, which is
> > used to point to the commit object on which the work tree is based,
> > and it has no inherent relation to the notion of the "current branch".
> Actually .git/HEAD is exactly where git stores the notion of the "curent 
> branch"
> if it contains something like
> ref: refs/heads/master
> Then the current branch is master
> If it just contains a sha then HEAD is detached and there IS no current 
> branch.
> Which was my point.

Well, again, you're right and we do not have any disagreement about
what role the HEAD ref plays in the repository.
But my nitpicking was about a different issue really.
Now let me try linguistic approach. ;-)
When anyone reads "current branch's HEAD", they clearly see the usage
of the possessive case; I'm sure you know for what it is used.
In our case, the only way to parse the sentence leads the reader to a
conclusion that every branch in Git somehow possesses, that is,
references or controls (or whatever) its own HEAD reference, when in
fact it's the other way round -- the HEAD ref references the current
branch, and there is exactly single instance of HEAD in the

Hence why I warned: for instance, you supposedly had a firm idea about
the HEAD ref before reading that paper and thus you couldn't be
deceived by that wording, but a Git newcomer would have a good chance
to get the wrong mental picture in their head.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to