Martin <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/07/2021 09:57, Sergey Organov wrote: >> Martin <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> Currently only the branch is mentioned. >>> Currently nothing does explicitly say that *commits* can be affected. >> Commits cannot be immediately affected. One of the most essential >> features of Git is that commits could only be affected (deleted) by >> garbage collection. That's what makes Git so nicely safe in operation. >> It'd be unfortunate to have statements in the manual pages that >> contradict this. >> > > Tell that a new user, who never heard of "dangling commits" or the reflog. > > For ages, I wondered what git fsck meant by "dangling commits" and why > my repro always had "that problem". > And what I might do with that hash it gave me. > > For a new user, a commit that is not in any branch listed by > "git branch --all" or "git stash" > is effectively not existent. > > For a new user, it is also "no help" (and the doc should help) to > avoid saying it, and instead refer to something else from which it > could be > concluded. > "reset the branch" talks about the branch, and not the commit. > A new user, even if he read about it before, may very well not make > the conclusion. > So "reset the branch" does nothing for a new user. And an expert > already knows it. So for whom should that be there? > > We can use the term unreachable. But it is no better than say "drop" > > Technically they are not "unreachable". If I have the hash, I (as > expert) can reach them. > If I do not, I can get it from "fsck". (And spend a good amount of > time, going through a few dozen hashes. (That is, if the reflog was > disabled) > > "Drop" does not mean "deleted". More like "dropped from view", "given up" > But a new user reading "dropped" will take it as a hint to be careful. > > We can add "dropped commit" to the glossary. Then there is no > ambiguity. (I don't think its needed, but...) > > We can say "may no longer have a reference" instead of "dropped" > But it is long, and again obscure (to a new user). As I just stated in anther answer, which see, I see what you mean. I'm still against "dropped" though. I did suggest a wording in that post: "Allows to reuse <branch-name>. Commits from the former branch may become unreferenced." Another one could be: "Allows to reuse <branch-name>. Commits from the former branch could be lost." Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
