> And defaults cut both ways, I still can't fathom why `git log HEAD` would display the whole repository history. I don't know why that's part of the defaults

> And defaults cut both ways, I still can't fathom why `git log HEAD` would display the whole repository history. I don't know why that's part of the defaults discussion, but okay. > Why is a meaningless name better than no name at all? Why is git's default behaviour of losing unnamed heads altogether better than just leaving them alone? Why would you give a meaningless name? That's a red herring. Do hg users just memorize which head is which? Mercurial users seem to get hung up on detached heads a lot. They seem to be part of the Mercurial workflow in a way that I've never really understood. But git's detached heads are at least created when I expect them to be, are easily deleted, and are easily saved. Mercurial's detached heads (or whatever they're called) want me to either merge them (why would I merge commits that popped up out of nowhere?), or close them as described in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3688263/mercurial-beheading-a-head http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3688263/mercurial-beheadi... (apparently causing these mysterious heads to be saved forever). I much prefer a DAG with labels, instead of all this state specific to Mercurial that I have to manage.