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 ca
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
"switch-branc
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 her
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 oc
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 le
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 patc
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 patch in v1 and starts adding some changes in
these new commands:
- restore
9 matches
Mail list logo
