Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:49:43PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > >> Good point. I think I confused myself with the new branch case. On the >> other hand, I think the "not starting a new branch" case should go as >> well. If you've got a detached HEAD, and you do: >> >> $ git checkout -b foo origin/master >> >> we probably ought to describe the old state. The reason that starting a >> new branch usually shouldn't give the message is that new->commit == >> old.commit (assuming that the defaults have gotten filled in by this >> point, which they should have). > > Right, I was thinking it was necessary for the starting a new branch > case, but a better test is checking whether the commits are the same. > > So based on what you said and thinking a bit, I came up with: > > if (!opts->quiet && !old.path && new->commit != old.commit) > > and then I had the brilliant idea of checking what git-checkout.sh did. > And sure enough: > > elif test -z "$oldbranch" && test "$new" != "$old" > then > describe_detached_head 'Previous HEAD position was' "$old" > fi > > Patch is below. It was a good idea to keep the scripted ones in contrib/examples so that they are readily accessible to find out what we used to do ;-). Thanks. Will apply to 'maint'. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
