Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> onsdag 20 maj 2009 23:43:59 skrev "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> I agree. For decorating the history it's convenient, but it's inconsistent. For some reason
> it was harder to see without the unit tests. All kinds of things slip by when testing is
> done on the surface only.
>
> I'll update, and and even more tests.
Thanks.
> Should we use multiple Ref objects for symrefs? I.e. a Ref referring to another in a chain,
> with all symrefs in between visible?
Yea, I'm starting to think that we should expose a symref as a Ref that
contains a nested Ref. The getObjectId() / getPeeledObjectId() of any
of those Refs in that chain should return the leaf node value, but the
name of each Ref should be the name of the symref.
So readRef(HEAD) yields:
Ref {
name = "HEAD"
next = Ref {
name = "refs/heads/master"
next = null
objectId = ....
}
}
That may break some callers though, as they'd now get HEAD instead
of master as the name of the return value.
--
Shawn.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html