Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> If you google for `git remote "set-head"` there's barely any > >> information. It's basically all online man pages. > > > > Why would people need to use "git remote set-head" most of the time? > > I somehow thought Felipe wanted to say that there is nothing but > manual pages that mention the command and, "look how useful set-head > subcommand is, here is how you use it" blog posts are not seen > because nobody uses 'remote set-head'. > > I do not quesiotn the frequency count of set-head, but I do not > think the lack of mention of set-head leads to the conclusion that > nobody uses "git log origin.."; there is a leap in logic. I did not say that is the only evidence to lead to that conclusion. But it is evidence. > As you said below, "origin" is there without need for set-head, Only sometimes. > so the lack of enthusiastic advocate for set-head does not mean > anything wrt how people find "origin" useful. Yes it does. Contrary to popular belief absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If I walk around Central Park for half an hour and I don't see any elephants, that's evidence that there are no elephants in Central Park at this very moment. It is not *conclusive* evidence, but it is evidence. Just because the evidence for $x is not sufficient to prove $x doesn't mean there is no evidence for $x. -- Felipe Contreras
