Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Oct 16, 2009, 00:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0910160240440.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <885649360910151647v27a15334x63fe3b6f5035dbd2@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, James Pickens wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > > > >> $ git checkout origin/next ;# ditto > >> $ git symbolic-ref HEAD > >> refs/remotes/origin/next > > > > Ok, after reading Daniel's message to remind us that "git fetch" after > > this will get us into trouble, I agree that detaching HEAD is inevitable. > > Some people liked the idea, so let's not give up just yet. Here are a few > things Git could do when a fetch wants to update the currently checked out > branch: > > 1. Refuse the fetch. > 2. Update the ref, leaving the user with a work tree and index that don't > match their HEAD. > 3. Detach the HEAD, then update the ref. > 4. Update the ref, then check it out.
Everything but 1 and 4 would blatantly violate the law of the Least Surprise.
And that very much includes what our beloved maintainer proposes.
BTW I appreciate that finally a few users join discussion. It felt awfully lonely for a while.
Ciao, Dscho