Re: Should "git log --decorate" indicate whether the HEAD is detached?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 20, 2015, 08:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPc5daWz-Xa7q6f9RzgTP4has8DcCG4QgK7SMGNbH6KGnEyr2Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACdBeKnqZuu50knWs=aCm7295no880EN9TYY+hMnfSdVvdZ4AA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Julien Cretel <j.cretel@umail.ucc.ie> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Julien's "HEAD=master, other" vs "HEAD, master, other" may be >> subdued enough to be undistracting, I would guess. I do not think >> the distinction between "HEAD = master" and "HEAD -> master" would >> be useful, on the other hand. > > Just to clarify, I suggested these two notations as alternatives for > denoting the same state: "HEAD is attached to master". They were not > meant to denote different states. Accordingly, a detached HEAD could > be denoted by "HEAD, master, other" (i.e. the same as the current > output of "git log --decorate").
That makes it even better than my misunderstood version ;-) A list that is usually "A, B, C" that sometimes has "A, B=C" is inconspicuous enough not to be distracting too much, I would say.
Thanks.