On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:33 AM Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:30 PM Stefan Beller wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:09 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > > should we do
> > > > something about detached HEAD in this
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen 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
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:30 PM Stefan Beller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:09 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > should we do
> > > something about detached HEAD in this switch-branch command (or
> > > whatever its name will be)?
> > >
Stefan Xenos writes:
> So - IMO - detaching should always be an explicit action. Some options
> that occur to me:
>
> git switch-branch --detach
That is the most obvious way to spell it, and it is why we have "git
checkout --detach". If we were to split one half of "checkout" into
I think users have problems with detached heads for several reasons:
1. Users often enter the detached head state unexpectedly (for
example, by mistyping a "checkout" command or not understanding its
multipurpose nature, or as a side-effect of running a submodule
command). The change described
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:09 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen 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
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Duy Nguyen 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
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
> v2 is just a bit better to look at than v1. This is by no means final.
> If you think the command name is bad, the default behavior should
> change, or something else, speak up. It's still very "RFC".
>
> v2 breaks down the giant
8 matches
Mail list logo
