Hi, On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, James Pickens wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> $ git checkout origin/next ;# ditto > >> $ git symbolic-ref HEAD > >> refs/remotes/origin/next > > > > Ok, after reading Daniel's message to remind us that "git fetch" after > > this will get us into trouble, I agree that detaching HEAD is inevitable. > > Some people liked the idea, so let's not give up just yet. Here are a few > things Git could do when a fetch wants to update the currently checked out > branch: > > 1. Refuse the fetch. > 2. Update the ref, leaving the user with a work tree and index that don't > match their HEAD. > 3. Detach the HEAD, then update the ref. > 4. Update the ref, then check it out. Everything but 1 and 4 would blatantly violate the law of the Least Surprise. And that very much includes what our beloved maintainer proposes. BTW I appreciate that finally a few users join discussion. It felt awfully lonely for a while. Ciao, Dscho -- 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