From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Instructions concerning detached head lead to lost local changes Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:44:24 -0800 Message-ID: <7vps8thulj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <87mz3xa3vr.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7v1wl9mj48.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070202065949.GI18880@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , Carl Worth , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 02 08:45:04 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HCt6P-0005DS-LZ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:44:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423199AbXBBHo1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:44:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423178AbXBBHo0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:44:26 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtai18.cox.net ([68.230.241.41]:42060 "EHLO fed1rmmtao105.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423199AbXBBHoZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:44:25 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070202074425.WQJB1302.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:44:25 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id JXkQ1W00X1kojtg0000000; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 02:44:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2007 02:14:07 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > It's just that moving around amongst thousands of commits to pin point a > particular commit might require some digging work. This is why there > might be some value in a particular position and why there is an attempt > at protecting that "work". > > But since moving to another position while still remaining detached from > any branch has the same potential for losing the important position and > so without any kind of protection then it makes no sense to have such a > protection when moving back to a branch. Thanks -- I'd agree. Also I agree that "reflog on HEAD" is the right direction as it makes these 'protection' unnecessary. I've applied all your patches from today on the topic, along with Johannes's "log -g @{now}".