Hah, sounds good. I still don't get your argument here, I would be curious to hear more.
My point is that git is a data store involving a genesis block (initial commit), blocks of changes/diff's, tracked in sequential order, and with a form of consensus (code reviews and merges to primary).
What is missing that makes it not a blockchain?
And my caveat here, I can't stand arguments for cryptocurrencies and have never purchased any. Blockchain as a concept is fine, and git is a blockchain as best I can tell.
All secondary branches are works in progress that may be proposed as new commits to main.
Sticking with the blockchain comparison, every side branch in got is akin to potential blocks that miners are working on.