Marc Branchaud venit, vidit, dixit 23.02.2015 16:12: > On 15-02-22 12:38 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> "git status" carefully names a detached HEAD "at" resp. "from" a rev or >> ref depending on whether the detached HEAD has moved since. "git branch" >> always uses "from", which can be confusing, because a status-aware user >> would interpret this as moved detached HEAD. >> >> Make "git branch" use the same logic and wording. > > Except that the wording in "git branch" is more correct, especially if the > detached HEAD contains new commits. > > In other words, "at" is only correct if the detached HEAD matches the ref. > If the HEAD has other commits, it is no longer "at" that ref but instead it > has grown "from" it. Sure, but that's exactly what git status does. Haven't you tried out? And it's exactly what I suggest for git branch. It conveys more information. > But even if the detached HEAD matches the ref, saying it came "from" that ref > (with 0 extra commits) is still better than saying > detached-HEAD-with-extra-commits is "at" the ref. Why? Both are true. "at" conveys the additional information that HEAD is still at the that rev. Michael -- 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