Fwd: ephemeral-branches instead of detached-head?

On Aug 12, 2013 11:06 PM, "Duy Nguyen" [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, David Jeske [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Is there currently any way to say "hey, git, show me what commits are
dangling that might be lost in the reflog?"

How do you define dangling commits?

Any commit which I did not explicitly do something with. (Merge,
rebase, amend, branch name, discard)

Today every one of those actions is explicit except discard.

When you do "git commit --amend",
the current commit will become dangling (in the sense that it's not
referred by any ref, but the commit exists) and those are just noise
in my opinion.

This is *exactly* my point.

There is no way to distinguish a commit which was accidentally and
implicitly dangled due to checkout or submodule update on a detached
head, from all those other intentionally dangling refs which were
explicitly handled with merge, rebase, amend.

Ephemeral branches would change only the implicit discard.. Turning it
into a named branch and requiring an explicit discard.