On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had >> time to check... >> >> Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that >> d/f conflicts with an existing reference? If so, that might be a >> slightly worse UI for users. I'd rather learn about such a problem when >> setting HEAD (when I am thinking about the new branch name and am in the >> frame of mind to solve the problem) rather than later, when I try to >> commit to the new branch. > > Good question. The answer is no, it's allowed both before and after my > patch. At least via git-symbolic-ref. > > I agree it would be nice to know earlier for such a case. For > symbolic-ref, we probably should allow it, because it's plumbing that > may be used for tricky things. For things like "checkout -b", you'd > generally get a timely warning as we try to create the ref. > > The odd man out is "checkout --orphan", which leaves the branch unborn. > It might be nice if it did a manual check that the ref is available (and > also that it's syntactically acceptable, though I think we may do that > already). > > But all of that is orthogonal to this fix, I think.
Thanks for checking. Yes, I totally agree that this is orthogonal. Michael
