Re: ephemeral-branches instead of detached-head?

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

 



David Jeske <davidj@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> @Junio - to put the issue in the context of your previous comments on
> the topic... way back when you made a comment about warnings during
> commits to detached heads..
>
> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/RFC-Detached-HEAD-reminder-on-commit-td834710.html#a834959
>
>> If we _really_ don't want newbies to shoot themselves in the foot, we
>> probably can issue a loud warning when they detach there HEAD.
>> Oh, wait,... we already do that.
>
> The reason this rationale doesn't ring true for me, is that it is
> *very* common for me to checkout a detached-head and there is nothing
> odd or dangerous about it.

You do not have to say that to me _now_ ;-) because after makinng
the above ancient comment others have corrected me, I agreed with
them, and we no longer rely on that "you are detaching, danger
ahead" warning.

With the same line of reasoning, the place where users make commits
on detached HEAD is not where the danger arises, either; the real
danger is where you switch out of the detached HEAD state, and I
think we do give a loud warning there.
--
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]