Re: Fwd: ephemeral-branches instead of detached-head?

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

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> David Jeske <davidj@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> When you do "git commit --amend",
>>> the current commit will become dangling (in the sense that it's not
>>> referred by any ref, but the commit exists) and those are just noise
>>> in my opinion.
>>
>> This is *exactly* my point.
>>
>> There is no way to distinguish a commit which was accidentally and
>> implicitly dangled due to checkout or submodule update on a detached
>> head, from all those other intentionally dangling refs which were
>> explicitly handled with merge, rebase, amend.
>
> I do not follow.  Just like "commit --amend", checking out another
> branch to leave a detached HEAD _is_ an explicit way to discard what
> you started experimenting behind, declaring it useless.  Otherwise
> you would have saved it to some named branch.
>
> This of course assumes that, as you said in one of your earlier
> messages, the user knows what he is doing, though.

By the way, by the above I do not mean "checking out a named branch
should not be protected".  I am saying "treating commits lost by
running 'commit --amend' differently does not make sense to me".
--
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]