From: Ron Garret <ron1@flownet.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:52:08 GMT
Subject: Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!?
Message-ID: <ron1-6F8B85.14520801022010@news.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <87aavsu9b3.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

In article <87aavsu9b3.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>, Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> 
wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > Steve Diver <squelch2@googlemail.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > If read carefully (some may argue that it does not need a very careful
> > reading to get it, though), this hints that "detached HEAD" state is a
> > substitute for using a temporary branch, but it may not be strong
> > enough.
> 
> For my rather fresh eye it looks more like unnamed (anonymous?) branch
> than a temporary one. Doesn't detached HEAD behave exactly like a
> regular HEAD but pointing to the tip of an unnamed branch?

I strongly concur with this.

And as long as I'm weighing in, it would also help to prevent confusion 
if it were made clear that this unnamed branch doesn't actually come 
into existence unless and until you do a commit.

rg