On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Although from the consistency point of view, HEAD reflog to
> follow swicthing branches like Nico's patch aims for (but not
> implements fully yet) makes perfect sense, I still am somewhat
> doubtful about it being actually useful in practice.
It is useful as it then becomes almost impossible to lose things. It
could be a great tool to assist with user problems. It also could serve
as the data source for true back/undo/redo commands. And above all it
just feels right. ;-)
> Even if we assume it is useful, I think forbidding people from saying
> HEAD@{...} right now only because the new semantics is unimplemented
> yet feels wrong. If you use only one branch, there is no difference
> between the reflog of master and HEAD today, without waiting for that
> "reflog on HEAD".
If you're OK with a potential semantic change for HEAD@{..} in the
future then I don't mind. The semantic change will affect those who
actively use multiple branches and/or detached head. Hopefully those
people are confortable enough with git not to be confused by the change.
( I still think preventing HEAD@{} has its merits though )
Your call.
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