Re: bad git pull

Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:

One observation is that ORIG_HEAD should probably be named PREV_HEAD in 
such context to make it more obvious what it is about.

I do not see much difference either way, but I suspect ORIG_HEAD
is pretty much well established by now.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

One observation is that ORIG_HEAD should probably be named PREV_HEAD in 
such context to make it more obvious what it is about.

I do not see much difference either way,

ORIG suggests "origin" to me, something that was there first, or before 
anything else.  If you want to undo something, you want its "previous" 
state restored relative to the current state, not the absolute previous 
(first) one.

but I suspect ORIG_HEAD
is pretty much well established by now.

Well, cogito for one doesn't care at all, and it even doesn't make for 
it to be created/updated.

But still it can remain for what it is now, and PREV_HEAD added for undo 
purpose.

Not a big deal in any case though.


Nicolas

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

ORIG suggests "origin" to me

It's meant to be short for ORIGinal, not ORIGin. That's how I wrote it and 
have always read it ;)

		Linus