On 15-02-23 11:24 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: > 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. Oops, right. Sorry, I got blinded by the various "detached at" examples in your patch's notes. M. -- 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