Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxx> writes: > I applied Junio's suggestion to suggest pushing HEAD in detached HEAD > state. I don't care very much either way indeed (and I didn't want to > make the message too heavy, just give the user a way to do something). If I were asked my honest opinion, I would have to say that I do not care too deeply about it either, in the sense that I won't claim that the workflow I thought was most likely to get a new user into the situation to get the message on the detached HEAD would be really the most likely one, but I wouldn't spend too much time on coming up with other scenarios myself even though I admit that there may be some other cases that the updated message is not optimal. But one thing that I would value (and I would like to see others on the list to also value) is that every change we make is backed by solid thinking---at least I would like to see us being able to explain _why_ we thought that the message after applying this is better than the old one today. Others who will wonder why the message advises the action it advises three months down the road should be able to find out the thinking behind the change, and decide to agree or disagree with it. Without such a trace of clear and solid thinking, i.e. "even though we admit we may not have fully thought things through, at least we considered this and that when we came up with this solution", we would end up going circles, wasting everybody's time. In any case, I've applied them and pushed the results out. Thanks. -- 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