Subject: Re: master^ is not a local branch -- huh?!?

From: Sergei Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:58:56 +0300

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
> Steve Diver <[email-masked]> writes:

[...]

> If read carefully (some may argue that it does not need a very careful
> reading to get it, though), this hints that "detached HEAD" state is a
> substitute for using a temporary branch, but it may not be strong
> enough.

For my rather fresh eye it looks more like unnamed (anonymous?) branch
than a temporary one. Doesn't detached HEAD behave exactly like a
regular HEAD but pointing to the tip of an unnamed branch?

-- Sergei.