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

In article [ref], Sergei Organov [off-list ref] 
wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Steve Diver [off-list ref] writes:

[...]

quoted

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?

I strongly concur with this.

And as long as I'm weighing in, it would also help to prevent confusion 
if it were made clear that this unnamed branch doesn't actually come 
into existence unless and until you do a commit.

rg