From: Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:36:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git checkout: create unparented branch by --orphan
Message-ID: <55bacdd31003220736u72ea6453pd59d8fa82a3ed12@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <953BEDE2-1A17-49EA-BEC5-D198DBB1FF23@pobox.com>

Hi again,

2010/3/22 Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>:
> The existing uses of --root are close to, but not identical to this proposed
> usage. The existing uses all relate to handling the already created root
> commit(s) of a commit/branch/repository. This proposed usage relates to the
> yet to be created first commit on the new branch. It is possible to use the
> "already created" interpretation in this context (create a new branch based
> on the root commits of the specified commits), but it really does not make
> much sense. Still, qualifying "root" might help prevent some confusion:
>
>    --new-root
>    --fresh-root
>    --root-branch?
>
>    --new-history
>    --fresh-history
>    --fresh-branch
>
> Logically, both --orphan and --root are descriptions of the commit that will
> _eventually_ be stored under the branch, but not descriptions of the
> transient state of the branch itself. This state is described in a few
> error/warning messages as "not yet born" or "unborn" (checkout, pull, fsck).
> It seems to be an unofficial term though (or maybe just unimportant) since
> it is not otherwise documented (it is not in the glossary, but it does
> appear in the release notes a few times). So with some weight of existing
> terminology behind it:
>
>    --unborn
>
> --no-parent was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but it suffers from
> looking like a negation of a potential --parent option. Though much longer,
> --without- does not suffer this same problem.
>
>    --without-parents
>    --without-history
>    --ahistorically    (probably the non-standard prefix is too "native")
>
>    --ex-nihilo        (just kidding?)
>
> --
> Chris
>

2010/3/22 Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>:
> [Disclosure: non-native speaker but having lived with natives ;)]
>
> I'd favour "root" for several reasons:
>
> - "root" is the correct technical term in graph theory
> - "root" is used the same way in other (Git) places
> - "orphan" is someone who used to have parents, so with "orphan" I would
> rather associate the process of removing parents from the picture
> (removing parentship information from an existing commit)
>
> Just my two Euro-cents :)
> Michael

I really don't care about names as long as I will be able to create
the 'orphan' branches.

Whatever you people decide is good to me.

Regards