From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20091014184018.GB15522@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20091014050851.GE31810@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20091014153934.GA3680@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vljjdese3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Daniel Barkalow , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 14 20:41:46 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1My8mv-0005gB-L5 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:41:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757814AbZJNSkz (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:40:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757511AbZJNSky (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:40:54 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:42112 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757431AbZJNSky (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:40:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 31108 invoked by uid 107); 14 Oct 2009 18:43:49 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:43:49 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:40:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vljjdese3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:34:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> AFAIR we still remember HEAD to be a symlink. > > > > I think that has been abandoned for detached HEAD (that is, if you > > support only symlinked HEAD, then you cannot detach at all). But I might > > be wrong. It has been a while since I looked at that code. > > If I understand what Daniel is doing correctly, the idea is to keep this > extra information only while the HEAD is detached, no? "HEAD itself > could be a symlink" is an irrelevant issue, isn't it? Right. That is what I was trying to say, but somehow it didn't come out very clearly. -Peff