Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > ...or maybe my argument breaks down because `HEAD` is more prominent > and tends to be used by users more (`git reset --hard HEAD`, `git > checkout HEAD~1`), and thus there's an argument it already is somewhat > aligned with user terminology? Yeah, you are correct to say that HEAD is a lot more prominent than "refs/heads/". "git branch --list" does not expose the "refs/heads/" part (but "git for-each-ref" does), but you'd see HEAD in many places (e.g. "git show -s <RETURN>" gives the --decorate output that says "HEAD -> master" etc.). Of course we _could_ plan to rename "HEAD" to something else, like "CURRENT" and deal with the fallout, and then rename "refs/heads/" to "refs/branches/", but for what cost to achieve what benefit? The tradeoff does not look all that good to me. So I'd say renaming --heads to --branches would probably be a good place to stop, at least for now.
