[falseassertions]

I am sad that this article exists, let alone all this discussion. It feels like that sort of take that is put out there just to be contrarian and stir the pot.

I don't think I've ever seen someone say "a branch is a ref" with the intent to diminish the concept of a branch or the utility of it, or the special language around it's concept.

On the other hand, appreciating what git commits are, what tags are, what branches are, and understanding the "just refs" part of it, was vital to my understanding of git. This article feels like it argues against something that (1) doesn't exist, and (2) in the form in which it does exist, serves a vital role of exposing 'just enough' of git to help some folks understand the model enough to be effective with it.