Re: [PATCH] logging branch deletion to help recovering from mistakes
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 7, 2010, 18:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20101207180236.GC21483@burratino>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101207175418.GU355@fearengine.rdu.redhat.com>
Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:45:20AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Casey Dahlin wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
>>> Could commits made onto a detached head also show up here? Or is that >>> better thwarted with another mechanism? >> >> I think that's better thwarted with the HEAD reflog: >> >> $ git log -g HEAD > > I was more worried about changes that were made onto a detached head, > and then the head was reattached, leaving the new commits dangling.
But isn't that exactly what a detached HEAD is for? If one wants the experiments one does on detached HEAD to be kept around "just in case", wouldn't it make more sense to give them a (branch) name so they can be separated from one another?
In other words, I do not see the connection yet. Maybe it would be best to propose another patch on top to do that? (Patches often come with documentation, which means clear explanation of use cases, which would address my worry here.)