From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B293211B3 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 01:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726558AbeK3Mzk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:55:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:64156 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726332AbeK3Mzk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:55:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03171CCCF; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 20:48:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=opUX1uUZd9Jcbf4oKu+0etg+unU=; b=tkzh8g UiilwwlN7cmHH9QUfBfKnVMdSP4tLQD2yIvfggJ54yaqF+D94JMLUJqK2lkpxjA/ mKB7i4ciTf+x6ciOwXmWJpDP56hlgldFqLdCBTCCGOr1fod79rKkfFiRBmlDjmv1 nq+i7J7cnAifSSr5QbOLi8cjmp15ugJFNs3Cg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=X3HqQFa1qWxy05N85eeTtoLPMPSE31PU VdG/Yz0xgjGV94VJBAmibpwF6NQpd9ljT+2M1kgwAmoVHqQxO6iDH+DDkFR8Ly7J ROzZfeqcMPqPZdrCgR8JpDr5imPNXciXsVEwFePsvU+ODFcALOGOIw9weRZagphl VOr2lJZTkuw= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E9F1CCCE; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 20:48:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.187.50.168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1A461CCCC; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 20:48:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List , Stefan Beller , Thomas Gummerer Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 0/7] Introduce new commands switch-branch and checkout-files References: <20181120174554.GA29910@duynguyen.home> <20181127165211.24763-1-pclouds@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:47:59 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:09:22 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F8B45762-F441-11E8-9549-F5C31241B9FE-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 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).