From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Detached HEAD (experimental) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:45:51 -0800 Message-ID: <7vd55wsu8w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vac11yirf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87ps9xgkjo.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7virfprquo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87odphgfzz.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 03 03:46:08 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 1H1w8k-0007ME-5A for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:46:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753891AbXACCpx (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:45:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753900AbXACCpx (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:45:53 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31]:52100 "EHLO fed1rmmtao08.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753891AbXACCpw (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:45:52 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070103024552.PXKG16632.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:45:52 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 6Sl41W00M1kojtg0000000; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:45:04 -0500 To: Carl Worth In-Reply-To: <87odphgfzz.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (Carl Worth's message of "Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:34:24 -0800") 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: Carl Worth writes: > I don't actually prefer "no commit allowed". I just didn't want the > user to have to explicitly disable the safety before being able to > perform a checkout based on a tag. Ok, then I think we are in agreement that the safety should be at the point where the user might leave the detached state. > I am still interested in this feature, so I will try to find time to > come back with a revised version of your patch with the missing safety > check (and without requiring -d on checkout). Thanks again for this > initial take on the problem. (Though if anyone else beats me to it, I > certainly will not be offended.) Sounds good. I do not mind losing -d, but I would suggest that there should be a message that says "you are no longer on any branch" after a checkout that makes the head detached. The user should be warned about such an unusal situation.