Re: [RFC/PATCH] branch: name detached HEAD analogous to status

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Feb 23, 2015, 16:24 UTC
Message-ID: <54EB545A.2040309@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <54EB436E.9060106@xiplink.com>

Marc Branchaud venit, vidit, dixit 23.02.2015 16:12:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 15-02-22 12:38 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> "git status" carefully names a detached HEAD "at" resp. "from" a rev or
>> ref depending on whether the detached HEAD has moved since. "git branch"
>> always uses "from", which can be confusing, because a status-aware user
>> would interpret this as moved detached HEAD.
>>
>> Make "git branch" use the same logic and wording.
> 
> Except that the wording in "git branch" is more correct, especially if the
> detached HEAD contains new commits.
> 
> In other words, "at" is only correct if the detached HEAD matches the ref.
> If the HEAD has other commits, it is no longer "at" that ref but instead it
> has grown "from" it.

Sure, but that's exactly what git status does. Haven't you tried out?

And it's exactly what I suggest for git branch. It conveys more information.

> But even if the detached HEAD matches the ref, saying it came "from" that ref
> (with 0 extra commits) is still better than saying
> detached-HEAD-with-extra-commits is "at" the ref.

Why? Both are true. "at" conveys the additional information that HEAD is still at the that rev.

Michael