Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!?

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

 



In article <87aavsu9b3.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Sergei Organov <osv@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Steve Diver <squelch2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > If read carefully (some may argue that it does not need a very careful
> > reading to get it, though), this hints that "detached HEAD" state is a
> > substitute for using a temporary branch, but it may not be strong
> > enough.
> 
> For my rather fresh eye it looks more like unnamed (anonymous?) branch
> than a temporary one. Doesn't detached HEAD behave exactly like a
> regular HEAD but pointing to the tip of an unnamed branch?

I strongly concur with this.

And as long as I'm weighing in, it would also help to prevent confusion 
if it were made clear that this unnamed branch doesn't actually come 
into existence unless and until you do a commit.

rg

--
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]