From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <76718490910141156g440ee455t2e1db72ad72b7049@mail.gmail.com> <7v7huxbtbk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vws2xa9lu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091014230934.GC29664@coredump.intra.peff.net> <885649360910150036o72c3bd97ofad85d5316dc5b35@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Pickens , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , Jay Soffian , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 15 21:30:51 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 1MyW23-0007WW-PE for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:30:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935296AbZJOTXP (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:23:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935288AbZJOTXP (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:23:15 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:59543 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935287AbZJOTXO (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 22548 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Oct 2009 19:22:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Oct 2009 19:22:37 -0000 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > I think the description used in CVS and SVN (and, I think, others) is that > > you're not at the HEAD revision. I think they both account for the state > > where you've checked out the revision by number that's the latest > > revision, but you still can't grow the branch because you can't > > simultaneously stay on r1000 (as requested explicitly) and add a new > > commit. > > > > So maybe the right explanation is: > > > > $ git checkout master; git branch > > * master > > $ git checkout origin/master; git branch > > * origin/master (not at head) > > $ git checkout 123cafe^5; git branch > > * 123cafe^5 (not at head) > > I think this is wrong. Git has multiple heads, and insisting on "not at > head" would be extremely confusing. Maybe "(not at a head)"? Git does have multiple heads, but what's checked out isn't one of them, and that's actually the point. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*