Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!?

Ron Garret [off-list ref] writes:

The manual specifically contradicts you, so either you are wrong or the 
manual is wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, Pasky is one of the old timers and he knows a
thing or two about the git's world model.

And I do not see a contradiction in what the manual describes and "a
branch is a named pointer to a commit" (although "named" can probably be
omitted as "unnamed pointer" is not useful at the UI level).