On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:45 PM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > - Two more fancy features (the "git checkout --index" being the > > > > default mode and the backup log for accidental overwrites) are of > > > > course still missing. But they are coming. > > > > > > > > I did not go replace "detached HEAD" with "unnamed branch" (or "no > > > > branch") everywhere because I think a unique term is still good to > > > > refer to this concept. Or maybe "no branch" is good enough. I dunno. > > > > > > I personally like "unnamed branch", but "no branch" would still be > > > better than "detached HEAD". > > > > Haven't really worked on killing the term "detached HEAD" yet. But I > > noticed the other day that git-branch reports > > > > * (HEAD detached from 703266f6e4) > > > > and I didn't know how to rephrase that. I guess "unnamed branch from > > 703266f6e4" is probably good enough but my old-timer brain screams no. > > Perhaps "* (On an unnamed branch, at 703266f6e4)"? This 703266f6e4 is the fork point. Once you start adding more commits on top of this unnamed branch, I find it hard to define it "at" 703266f6e4 anymore. "forked from 703266f6e4" (or even starting/growing from...) is probably clearest but also a bit longer. -- Duy
