Junio C Hamano wrote:
In this sequence:
1$ git checkout $commit_name_that_is_not_a_local_branch
2$ git commit; hack; hack; hack;...
3$ git checkout $branch_name
[...]
Step #3 is where the state built in the detached HEAD "branch" vanishes
into lost-found.
The experts argued that #3 is where it is dangerous...
If step 3 is where the danger lies, wouldn't it then be most appropriate to put
the warning message there? I.e., warn or refuse to switch branches when
currently on a detached head containing new commits, kind of like branch -d's
cowardliness.
--
Uri
Please consider the environment before printing this message.
http://www.panda.org/how_you_can_help/
--
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