Re: [PATCH 3/3] prevent HEAD reflog to be interpreted as current branch reflog

[Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Although from the consistency point of view, HEAD reflog to
> follow swicthing branches like Nico's patch aims for (but not
> implements fully yet) makes perfect sense, I still am somewhat
> doubtful about it being actually useful in practice.

It is useful as it then becomes almost impossible to lose things.  It 
could be a great tool to assist with user problems.  It also could serve 
as the data source for true back/undo/redo commands. And above all it 
just feels right.  ;-)

> Even if we assume it is useful, I think forbidding people from saying 
> HEAD@{...} right now only because the new semantics is unimplemented 
> yet feels wrong.  If you use only one branch, there is no difference 
> between the reflog of master and HEAD today, without waiting for that 
> "reflog on HEAD".

If you're OK with a potential semantic change for HEAD@{..} in the 
future then I don't mind.  The semantic change will affect those who 
actively use multiple branches and/or detached head.  Hopefully those 
people are confortable enough with git not to be confused by the change.

( I still think preventing HEAD@{} has its merits though )

Your call.


Nicolas