On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Mark Lodato wrote: > Still, I find it slightly confusing and unfriendly. How about the following? It is slightly inaccurate. > Checking out commit 'master^0'. > > Since this is not a local branch head, any commits you make will be lost > when you check out another branch or commit. (In git terminology, HEAD > is detached.) If you just wish to look at files without committing, > this is fine. If you wish to make commits and retain them, you may > create a new branch by running: > > git checkout -b <new_branch_name> This gives the impression that any commit you make on a detached HEAD are going to be lost, unless you create a new branch first. And again, it is a good thing to have "detached HEAD" in there so to relate to existing documentation easily. > I think the above wording is fine for both commits (e.g. master^0) and > remote branches (e.g. origin/pu). With other wording, we may wish to > have two slightly different messages depending on what the user typed. You could have tags too. So instead of trying to be too smart, it is best to simply display the provided name without qualifier. > Also, I am not a big fan of "local branch head". How about "not the > name of a local branch"? I'm not sure... The confusion that started this thread was about "master^" which might be interpreted as the name of a local branch except for the fact that we want one commit back. So using "local commit head" is more precise. Nicolas -- 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