Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > But now we have a path as well, the notation of > <commit-ish> COLON <path> > is not a unique description of the blob, because > * there can be multiple <commit-ish>s depending on the tags and walking > * in boilerplate code cases, we might even have the blob at different > places (e.g. pristine copies of a license file in subdirectories) > > When calling for a tree-ish, we also accept commits and tags > plus walking directions.
I think you are confused --- that is not what "-ish" suffix is used in our conversation on objects. The reason why we say "-ish" is "Yes we know v2.15.0 is *NOT* a commit object, we very well know it is a tag object, but because we allow it to be used in a context that calls for a commit object, we mark that use context as 'this accepts commit-ish, not just commit'". But what you call "walking direction", e.g. "HEAD:Makefile", names a "BLOB". It is not "this is something like BLOB, no, we very well know it is not a blob but the context allows such a non-blob to be fed in place of a blob, so we take that even though it is not a blob". Because it is.
