Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] branch: name detached HEAD analogous to status

From: Marc Branchaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:12:46 -0500

On 15-02-22 12:38 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> "git status" carefully names a detached HEAD "at" resp. "from" a rev or
> ref depending on whether the detached HEAD has moved since. "git branch"
> always uses "from", which can be confusing, because a status-aware user
> would interpret this as moved detached HEAD.
> 
> Make "git branch" use the same logic and wording.

Except that the wording in "git branch" is more correct, especially if the
detached HEAD contains new commits.

In other words, "at" is only correct if the detached HEAD matches the ref.
If the HEAD has other commits, it is no longer "at" that ref but instead it
has grown "from" it.

But even if the detached HEAD matches the ref, saying it came "from" that ref
(with 0 extra commits) is still better than saying
detached-HEAD-with-extra-commits is "at" the ref.

		M.