On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > > warning: you are now browsing the history without a local branch. You > > > will not be able to commit changes unless you create a new local branch > > > with "git checkout -b <new_branch_name>". > > > > This isn't true. You can commit on top of a detached head. In fact you > > can do almost anything. > > "Commits you make will not be attached to permanent state unless you > create a local branch"? I'm not sure how the feature turned out to work, > but I know that (a) you're fine if you don't make any commits and (b) the > behavior is more like what happens with anonymous checkouts of other > people's repositories in non-distributed SCMs, so people will tend to > underestimate what they can do with this, rather than overestimating it > and getting into trouble. > > I suppose it's reasonable to warn at commit time, if we ended up going > with allowing commits like normal. I disagree. It is not the commit which is dangerous when the head is detached. It is the checkout of another branch. And this case is covered already such that the checkout is refused unless you actually create a branch for your detached head or you give -f to checkout to override the protection. Giving a warning at commit time is not the place where the user has to be aware of the issue since it is indeed not the place where there is any issue to worry about. Nicolas - 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