From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:43:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was
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:

> 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