From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:13:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Should "git log --decorate" indicate whether the HEAD is detached?
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:
> 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.