On 19/11/2020 11:10, Sergey Organov wrote: > Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > >> On 19/11/2020 01:51, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: >>> >>>> An alternative in the other direction is to go with the 'not currently >>>> on any branch' (detached at nowhere) but then require users to >>>> deliberately create their first branch with their chosen name. This >>>> moves the 'backward incompatibility' to a different place, which may be >>>> easier to manage. >>> As has already been mentioned by Peff, I do not think that is a >>> workable alternative, especially given that people are generally >>> afraid of and easily get confused by being on a detached HEAD. >> Yes, our use of the technical phrase 'detached HEAD' is confusing, >> compared with the more pleasant 'not on any branch', or 'not at a branch >> tip'. Such is the curse of knowledge. > To me "not on a branch [tip]" is also confusing, as in fact you are, as > is easily seen after you perform a few commits, and now HEAD points > directly to the tip of the branch (that has no other references). > > I wonder why Git didn't rather adopt "unnamed branch" or "nameless > branch" to describe this mode of operation? Given the ephemeral nature of branches they sound like good suggestion. However I suspect "history" to be the "why" of the current 'detached head' usage. Maybe it's a side reference to Nearly Headless Nick or other discussions of the time (aka lost in history)? -- Philip
