[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/2] builtin-reflog: fix deletion of HEAD entries
From:       Junio C Hamano <gitster () pobox ! com>
Date:       2008-08-10 18:52:33
Message-ID: 7vej4w3dou.fsf () gitster ! siamese ! dyndns ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Pieter de Bie <pdebie@ai.rug.nl> writes:

> On Aug 10, 2008, at 3:01 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>-		if (!dwim_ref(argv[i], spec - argv[i], sha1, &ref)) {
>>+		if (!dwim_log(argv[i], spec - argv[i], sha1, &ref)) {
>
> This is also what add_reflog_for_walk() does, but that function tries to resolve
> the argv[i] part first, without doing the dwim_log().
>
> Perhaps we can also ...

Sorry, I do not understand what you meant by the above comment.

 - "This is also what add_reflog_for_walk() does" -- I take it you mean
   the use of dwim_log() instead of dwim_ref()?

 - "... but that function tries to resolve the argv[i] part first" -- do
   you mean the resolve_ref("HEAD"...) call inside "if (!*branch)"
   codepath?

   That one serves different purposes than "delete HEAD@{42}".  It is
   about showing "@{42}" --- in order to show reflog for "the current
   branch", it figures out the current branch by resolving "HEAD".

In any case, what confuses me is I cannot tell if you do or do not have
issues that I did not think of with the "s/dwim_ref/dwim_log/" change.
Are you saying "no that cannot be a correct fix; see the way dwim_log() is
used in add_reflog_for_walk() -- it does more than your one-liner"?

By the way, I think the idea of "Perhaps we can also..." part is good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]