Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> should we do >> something about detached HEAD in this switch-branch command (or >> whatever its name will be)? >> >> This is usually a confusing concept to new users > > And it just occurred to me that perhaps we should call this "unnamed > branch" (at least at high UI level) instead of detached HEAD. It is > technically not as accurate, but much better to understand.
As I said elsewhere in nearby thread, I agree that "unnamed branch" is a reasonable way to explain what the state the user is in. It is not incorrect per-se that HEAD is detached from anything in refs/ in such a state, but that is an implementation detail of how the worktree gets on the unnamed branch (which lasts until the worktree next gets on a named branch, at which point the unnamed branch disappears).
