Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > 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. Sure, so to me they sound even more natural in Git context than in any other VCS I'm aware of. > > 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)? I do have a few commits at which HEAD has been detached, not once at some. Bloody they are. -- Sergey
