Leszek Swirski <leszeks@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I assume that either the reflog entry should be amended to print
> something more informative (moving from master to origin/master, or at
> least master@{u}, or the SHA...), or the reflog search in
> wt_status_get_detached_from should do something cleverer with relative
> refs.
Nicely analyzed. A record "moving to @{u}" in the reflog may not
leave sufficient information for a later operation to tell what
branch was refered to with the @{u} reference back when "checkout"
was run. I suspect that checking out @{4}, @{1.day.ago}, etc. may
share the same issue.
"git checkout @{-1}" aka "git checkout -" may not have any problem
after such a checkout, as it only uses "moving from" side of the
reflog entry.
