Re: user manual question

From: Zorba <cr@altmore.co.uk>
Date: Dec 28, 2008, 23:53 UTC
Message-ID: <gj96pl$885$4@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <slrnglf3qh.c7j.sitaramc@sitaramc.homelinux.net>

Hi Sitaram!

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Also, I did wonder about HEAD and head. One can move, the other doesn't! (well, acually it does - head moves "forward", as the tip of the branch grows)

you gotta love it :-)

Thanks for your other post/reply too - I will be getting back to you on that one

Conor

"Sitaram Chamarty" <sitaramc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnglf3qh.c7j.sitaramc@sitaramc.homelinux.net...

Show 24 quoted lines

> On 2008-12-28, Zorba <cr@altmore.co.uk> wrote:
>> Under "Examining an old version without creating a new branch" subsection 
>> in
>> chapter1
>>
>> to aid my understanding, could the statement:
>>
>> "The HEAD then refers to the SHA1 of the commit instead of to a branch, 
>> and
>> git branch shows that you are no longer on a branch:"
>>
>> be restated more explicitly as:
>>
>> "The HEAD then refers to the SHA1 of the commit instead of to a branch 
>> head,
>> and git branch shows that you are no longer on a branch head:"
>
> Sure, but I prefer "tip"; reduces confusion between "head"
> and "HEAD" in spoken descriptions (I teach internal classes
> on git occasionally, once even on a conf call!)
>
> The git glossary makes no mention of "tip", so this is
> probably "unblessed" :-)
>