2009/7/16 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Santi Béjar <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> reflist="$(get_remote_merge_branch "$@" 2>/dev/null)" &&
>> - oldremoteref="$(git rev-parse -q --verify \
>> - "$reflist")"
>> + num=0 &&
>> + while oldremoteref="$(git rev-parse -q --verify "$reflist@{$num}")"
>
> Applying @{nth} reflog notation to something that identifies itself as a
> "list" made me go "Huh?". Why is this variable called refLIST? Shouldn't
> it be simply called something like "remoteref" or even "ref"?
It used to be a list, before my patch 97af7ff (parse-remote: function
to get the tracking branch to be merge, 2009-06-12). I'll change it.
>
>> + do
>> + test $oldremoteref = $(git merge-base $oldremoteref $curr_branch) &&
>> + break
>> + num=$((num+1))
>
> I think we always write "num=$(( $num + 1 ))" for portability; notice the
> lack of $ in your version.
Oops, you are right. I somehow missed, I even did "git grep "((" *.sh"
to check it.
>
>> + done
>
> Does this loop ever give up? Should it?
When remote/$origin/$branch@{nth} does not exist. I don't think we
need another way to give up (nth<10?) because normally nth is small,
it does not harm the normal case and it can help when nth is large.
>
> What happens in the subsequent code outside of the patch context, when
> this loop does not find any suitable "old" value?
Then the $oldremoteref is empty and in the git-rebase command it is
used as ${oldremoteref:-$merge_head} so it get replaced by
$merge_head.
Thanks,
Santi
--
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