Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> 
> > I think the description used in CVS and SVN (and, I think, others) is that 
> > you're not at the HEAD revision. I think they both account for the state 
> > where you've checked out the revision by number that's the latest 
> > revision, but you still can't grow the branch because you can't 
> > simultaneously stay on r1000 (as requested explicitly) and add a new 
> > commit.
> > 
> > So maybe the right explanation is:
> > 
> > $ git checkout master; git branch
> > * master
> > $ git checkout origin/master; git branch
> > * origin/master (not at head)
> > $ git checkout 123cafe^5; git branch
> > * 123cafe^5 (not at head)
> 
> I think this is wrong.  Git has multiple heads, and insisting on "not at 
> head" would be extremely confusing.

Maybe "(not at a head)"? Git does have multiple heads, but what's checked 
out isn't one of them, and that's actually the point.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]