I think you missed the part where I said that Git intentionally _doesn't_ take a stance. Or rather, it defers the commitment, a bit like Schrodinger in regard to his cat. I guess what we agree on is that the problem goes away (kind of) as soon as that deferred commitment is made — but the problem goes away only for that particular instance, not in general.

What I'm arguing is that dismissing these philosophical problems as just nonesense rooted in the vagueness of language is missing the point. If nothing else, these paradoxes lay bare the vagueness of language, but moreover they beg the question of why language is so vague. What's more, it turns out that making language more precise — as we've tried to do with computers and mathematics — doesn't seem to solve the problems at all. In fact, it seems to lead to even more trouble, as, for example, the designers of Subversion or Mercurial eventually discovered.