On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:12:56AM +0000, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.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.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]