Erick Mattos venit, vidit, dixit 26.05.2010 16:52:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/5/26 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> @@ -684,8 +709,8 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>> if (opts.new_orphan_branch) {
>>> if (opts.new_branch)
>>> die("--orphan and -b are mutually exclusive");
>>> - if (opts.track > 0 || opts.new_branch_log)
>>> - die("--orphan cannot be used with -t or -l");
>>> + if (opts.track > 0)
>>> + die("--orphan should not be used with -t");
>>
>> Why s/cannot/should not/? Just being curious.
>
> I have typed that text, not changed the original so this is not a fix
> to your text. Anyway for me "should not" is more polite, like "you
> should not yell" meaning you really can not do it. Or "you should not
> disrespect the captain".
"should not" means you can but you should not. "die" certainly means you
cannot. This is not a matter of politeness but of correctness.
>
> But that is not a fix.
There's a "-" line with "cannot" and a "+" line with "should not". So
you certainly changed what was there before.
>
>>> +test_expect_success 'giving up --orphan not committed when -l and core.logAllRefUpdates = false deletes reflog' '
Really long line here ;)
>>> + git checkout master &&
>>> + git checkout -l --orphan eta &&
>>> + test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta &&
>>> + test_must_fail PAGER= git reflog show eta &&
>>> + git checkout master &&
>>> + ! test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta &&
>>> + test_must_fail PAGER= git reflog show eta
>>> +'
>>
>> I don't quite understand the title of this test, nor am I convinced that
>> testing for .git/logs/refs/heads/eta is necessarily a good thing to do
>> here. "eta" branch is first prepared in an unborn state with the working
>> tree and the index prepared to commit what is in 'master', and the first
>> "git reflog" would fail because there is no eta branch at that point yet.
>> Moving to 'master' from that state would still leave "eta" branch unborn
>> and we will not see "git reflog" for that branch (we will fail "git log
>> eta" too for that matter). Perhaps two "test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta"
>> shouldn't be there? It feels that it is testing a bit too low level an
>> implementation detail.
>
> So I need to explain the solution:
>
> When config core.logAllRefUpdates is set to false what really happens
> is that the reflog is not created and any reflog change is saved only
> when you have an existent reflog.
>
> What I did was to make a "touch reflog". Creating it, when the new
You mean checkout -l --orphan does that touch? There is none in the
test. Does ordinary checkout with -l does that, too?
> branch get eventually saved then the reflog would be written normally.
> But in case somebody give up this new branch before the first save,
> moving back to a regular branch would leave a ghost reflog.
The touched entry (is left), not a reflog, I assume, otherwise the
reflog command should not fail.
>
> I have coded the cleaning commands for that and the test is just a
> check of this behavior.
Which command does the cleaning? "reflog show" or "checkout master"?
>
> The first "test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta" tests if reflog was
> created and the second if it was deleted. No big deal.
>
> Regards
I haven't followed this series due to earlier worries about --orphan but
I'm wondering about this cleaning up behind the back. Maybe it's just a
matter of explanations, though.
Michael
--
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