Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> You can rectify it by tagging 'c' as a release point and detaching the >> HEAD at that tag without losing the clarity of the following description. >> While doing so, it would be better to update the labels in the >> illustration with s/master/master branch/ and s/[abcde]/commit &/ as well, >> e.g. >> >> >> HEAD (refers to branch 'master') >> | >> V >> a---b---c---d branch 'master' (refers to commit 'd') >> ^ >> | >> tag 'v2.0' (refers to commit 'c') > > While I agree with the above, I think this is still a good idea to keep > this example using a non-tagged commit as well. Perhaps not the first > one as you say. Just to make sure, I wasn't opposed to the idea of showing the history after building a few commits on top of the point you started from, to explain why you might want to re-attach the about-to-be-orphaned commits to the DAG anchored by refs. IOW, detach at v2.0 tag, experiment with a few commits to fix things up, and then when things go well, make it a maitenance branch, or something. -- 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