Fwd: ephemeral-branches instead of detached-head?
- From
David Jeske <davidj@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 13, 2013, 15:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+CP9O5cK_zuRRj6uBdW_H7XO-w=B=vcjQsT1iF70Ce-jc02Ow@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+CP9O5Ak3YD60--Mj+eLv3qzbZuuwTN-AxY3xb=SciKD=uZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Aug 12, 2013 11:06 PM, "Duy Nguyen" <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Jeske <davidj@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is there currently any way to say "hey, git, show me what commits are > > dangling that might be lost in the reflog?" > > How do you define dangling commits?
Any commit which I did not explicitly do something with. (Merge, rebase, amend, branch name, discard)
Today every one of those actions is explicit except discard.
> When you do "git commit --amend", > the current commit will become dangling (in the sense that it's not > referred by any ref, but the commit exists) and those are just noise > in my opinion.
This is *exactly* my point.
There is no way to distinguish a commit which was accidentally and implicitly dangled due to checkout or submodule update on a detached head, from all those other intentionally dangling refs which were explicitly handled with merge, rebase, amend.
Ephemeral branches would change only the implicit discard.. Turning it into a named branch and requiring an explicit discard.