From: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:52:28 GMT
Subject: RE: 'HEAD' is not a commit (according to git-checkout)
Message-ID: <022e01d6343e$d6c045b0$8440d110$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqimghmlgk.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On May 27, 2020 11:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 09:15:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> So, should we allow a random upstream & start-point combination?  It
> >> appears to me that as long as they share _some_ common ancestory, it
> >> may make sense.
> >
> > But wouldn't just about any two tips in a repository share some common
> > ancestry?
> 
> Yes, we are on the same page; the above was my round-about way to say
> that it does not look useful to restrict the allowed combination in order to
> give us some safety.

I have seen some strange ones, as part of migrating from other SCM solutions to git, where there were two completely unrelated histories - at least temporarily until stitched together towards the end of the migration. I don't think the assumption about common ancestry holds generally. I might have misunderstood, though.

Randall