Re: [PATCH] logging branch deletion to help recovering from mistakes
- From
- Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@redhat.com>
- Date
- Dec 7, 2010, 18:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20101207182608.GV355@fearengine.rdu.redhat.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101207180236.GC21483@burratino>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:02:36PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Casey Dahlin wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:45:20AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Casey Dahlin wrote: > > >>> 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? >
An experienced git user who's paying attention to what he's doing would do things that way, but detached heads and what happens to commits thereupon are one of those concepts that tends to puzzle newbies, so making it harder to make mistakes with them is probably a good idea.
Even still, there's always going to be those "Oh, I actually wanted to keep some of that" moments, and that's what I'm talking about preparing for.
--CJD