Uri Okrent <uokrent@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
You already get reminded that you were on a detached HEAD in step #3.
The primary point of the message you are replying to was that I do not
agree with the view that step #3 is the most problematic step. The
existing reminder would help people who read it and are capable of
realizing "ah, I started it on a throw-away branch but ended up with
something I would rather keep" and doing "git branch topic HEAD@{1}".
It will not help people who haven't got enough clue yet to know what a
detached HEAD is, or you can refer to your previous point with HEAD@{1}
notation. We do give brief advice at step #1 to alleviate this issue.
--
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