• lysdexic@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    They used it because it was an established term

    My graph theory is a bit fuzzy but I think that the definition of a branch in a directed graph corresponds to the path between two nodes/vertices. This means that by definition any path from the root node to any vertex is itself a branch.

    I don’t think Git invented this concept, nor did any other version control system.

    I know that “branch” helps intuitively and visually when it’s actually an offshoot with one root and a dangling tip, like an actual tree branch…

    I think that your personal definition of a branch doesn’t correspond to what graph theory calls a branch. Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      My graph theory is a bit fuzzy but I think that the definition of a branch in a directed graph corresponds to the path between two nodes/vertices.

      No, it’s a subtree of a DAG (directed acyclic graph). The technical term is arborescence but people who can’t spell it say branch instead.

      Technically it should have at least 2 children to be called a branch, and it can’t connect back to the graph or it’s not a subtree anymore. So it fits what most people intuitively think a (real) tree branch should look like.

      I don’t think Git invented this concept, nor did any other version control system.

      They didn’t, but Git went too far by calling any node with a label a “branch” regardless if it’s in the middle of the DAG. It doesn’t fit graph theory and it doesn’t fit the intuitive image either.

      Edit: Also, most of the source control systems that preceded Git were very rudimentary, they branch merging was either deficient or non-existent so most of them only used subtrees which never tied back to trunk. So for them “branch” was appropriate most of the time.