Thomas Rast wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > #1. These used to detach, but will create a local branch
> >
> > $ git checkout origin/next ;# as if with -t
> > $ git checkout xyzzy/frotz ;# as if with -t (origin is not special)
>
> Agreed, though I'm still in favour of a cleaner syntax for explicit
> detaching. (Cleaner in the sense that ^0 is documented as having a
> completely different purpose and only works by accident.)
Not sure if it's too late in the thread, but after sleeping over it
and re-reading (and the other developments in the thread) I'm not
happy with my earlier opinion any more. I think the DWIM part of it
is a bad idea because of this:
> > $ git checkout origin/master ;# detach, or refuse???
>
> This seems to be the trickiest of them. Maybe check out 'master', to
> make the process repeatable. Imagine, in your setting,
>
> git checkout origin/next ;# creates 'next' as with -t
> git checkout - ;# back
> git checkout origin/next ;# should go to 'next' again
>
> Then again, that would trade the confusion of detaching for the
> confusion of not checking out the exact commit that the user
> specified. Worse, 'next' could conceivably be tracking (as per
> branch.next.merge) some entirely different branch, making the "Your
> branch is behind..." message misleading.
So I think we're now mixing up two different goals in this thread:
a) Stopping the users from hurting themselves by inadvertent detaching
b) Helping the users by DWIMming local branches for them
I'm all for (a), but (b) is much harder.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html