On: Git branches are named sequences of commits

[Gunax]

I think you and the author are right, but addressing different audiences.

I think most people come to git with their own mental model of what a branch is, what a merge is, etc.

Learning git is often mostly undoing their preconceptions (ie by saying 'a branch is just a ref').

But ultimately, we humans tend to think of a branch as a branch, not a ref. For instance, the previous sentence probably made perfect sense to you.

[topaz0 → Gunax]

I agree, and would add that this is exactly what the OP is saying when it talks about this being a communication issue. Saying "a branch is just a ref" is the right attitude for talking to git and making it do what you want it to do, but it's the wrong attitude when you are writing or talking about code, in which case branches are the reification of the processes by which your code evolves.

[edflsafoiewq → Gunax]

Do they? I certainly had no intuitive notion of how version control would work before I learned git for the first time.

[Name_Chawps → edflsafoiewq]

You did have an intuitive notion of what the word "branch" means, though.