Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "git branch" will tell you your branches and which one is checked out > (or HEAD); "git status" will tell you the latter. > > "git log" is about the DAG which has absolutely nothing to do with what > you have currently checked out. Yeah, that summarizes my reaction, too. More importantly, "log" is about showing commits and "--decorate" is a way to enrich the presentation of commits---it talks about commits in terms of refs; the command and the option is not about describing refs and their relationships. I do not terribly mind showing the fact that HEAD points at a branch when --decorate talks about HEAD, partly because we will be showing both HEAD and the branch name _anyway_ in the output. But I am not sure if the extra bit of information is more helpful to the readers or being distracting. Julien's "HEAD=master, other" vs "HEAD, master, other" may be subdued enough to be undistracting, I would guess. I do not think the distinction between "HEAD = master" and "HEAD -> master" would be useful, on the other hand. We already know that the names listed all refer to the same commit, which means that we do not have to say "HEAD is detached" explicitly as long as we have a way to say "HEAD points at this branch". If HEAD is listed and is not marked to point at another branch that is shown, by definition it is detached, no? -- 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