Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/14] Introduce new commands switch-branch and restore-files

>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:29 AM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > v3 sees switch-branch go back to switch-branch (in v2 it was
> > > checkout-branch). checkout-files is also renamed restore-files (v1 was
> > > restore-paths). Hopefully we won't see another rename.
> >
> > I started reading through the patches.  I also tried to apply them
> > locally, but they had conflicts or missing base file version on both
> > master and next.  What version did you base it on?
>
> I think nd/checkout-dwim-fix because of a non-trivial conflict there
> (but I don't remember when I noticed it and rebased on that). Anyway
> you can get the whole series at
>
> https://gitlab.com/pclouds/git/tree/switch-branch-and-checkout-files
>
> It fixes some of your comments already, a couple of bug fixes here and
> there and in a good-enough shape that I start actually using it.

> > > - Two more fancy features (the "git checkout --index" being the
> > >   default mode and the backup log for accidental overwrites) are of
> > >   course still missing. But they are coming.
> > >
> > > I did not go replace "detached HEAD" with "unnamed branch" (or "no
> > > branch") everywhere because I think a unique term is still good to
> > > refer to this concept. Or maybe "no branch" is good enough. I dunno.
> >
> > I personally like "unnamed branch", but "no branch" would still be
> > better than "detached HEAD".
>
> Haven't really worked on killing the term "detached HEAD" yet. But I
> noticed the other day that git-branch reports
>
> * (HEAD detached from 703266f6e4)
>
> and I didn't know how to rephrase that. I guess "unnamed branch from
> 703266f6e4" is probably good enough but my old-timer brain screams no.