From: David Jeske Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:36:26 GMT Subject: Fwd: ephemeral-branches instead of detached-head? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Aug 12, 2013 11:06 PM, "Duy Nguyen" wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Jeske 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.