From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: honor advice.detachedHead when reattaching to a branch Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 19:21:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20110506232118.GA24794@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vei4bzhwm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110506223847.GC17848@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vbozfxwon.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 07 01:21:39 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QIUL4-00047r-HX for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 07 May 2011 01:21:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751429Ab1EFXVW (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2011 19:21:22 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:33356 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750841Ab1EFXVV (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2011 19:21:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 14664 invoked by uid 107); 6 May 2011 23:23:16 -0000 Received: from sigill-wired.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.8) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 06 May 2011 19:23:16 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 06 May 2011 19:21:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbozfxwon.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 Fri, May 06, 2011 at 03:59:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I tend to think (3) is now just useless. > > Quite the contrary. If you do not want to pay the price of (4) that is > useless most of the time, (3) is a cheap, space efficient and useful > information that is essential to allow you to get rid of (4) without > having to look at reflog. Sorry, I should have been more clear. If you turn off orphan-checking, (3) is just as useful as it always was. But _if_ you have orphan-checking turned on, and it comes up negative, showing (3) is not particularly useful. You already know you are not losing commits. -Peff