Re: Working copy revision and push pain

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2008, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <51419b2c0803231248h6b161fa7qa120fd18e60e274@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0803231519380.4353@racer.site>

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>  On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>  > If there is no currently active branch because you checked out a tag
>  > or some arbitrary commit, then HEAD is said to be detached, and HEAD
>  > will track the particular commit you checked out.
>
>  I'd say that "track" is the wrong verb here.

Good point.

Show 13 quoted lines

>  > The end result is that HEAD is always the most recent commit to which
>  > your working copy is relative to.  See also
>  > http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/glossary.html
>  >
>  > So, it sounds like we're both saying that in your case, you'd like the
>  > HEAD become detached and track the sha1 that it previously pointed to
>  > before your push rather than continuing to track the updated branch.
>
>  If you ever propose to detach the HEAD in a remote repository when
>  somebody pushed into the referenced branch, I am totally opposed to that.
>
>  You can play your own games with the update and post-update hooks as much
>  as you want, but please leave official Git alone.  Thankyouverymuch.

Obviously such a change in isolation would merely shift to a new kind
of gotcha for users; I was thinking that I'd be able to figure out an
accompanying change that would make things work nicely (or that
someone else on the list might think of something)...but no such luck.
 Further, I think Junio's latest post describes why I likely couldn't
come up with anything else and the idea is just plain bad.

Elijah