Erick Mattos venit, vidit, dixit 26.05.2010 20:04: > Hi, > > 2010/5/26 Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> 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. > > Everybody know what a minus or a plus sign means in a diff. ;-) > > What I have meant was that I had typed the whole line myself after > some previous removal while I was making the changes during > "deletion/moving lines" actions. No big deal, just a mistake. > > The real message change here is from blocking -t an -l to blocking > only -t. As I had told I have not realized the 'should not/cannot' > issue. > >>>>> + 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? > > This is not done by a test. It is part of the whole implementation. > It is done only when needed: on that special corner case. > > Please read the patches mainly the 2/5 and 3/5. > >>> 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 >> > > Your questions are too unaware of the code. ;-) As I don't think you > are asking me to explain each single line then I imagine you have not > read the patches, just the chat. Please read the patch series. I > will be very glad to answer any further questions then. I'm not asking you to explain your code but your intentions: What is it supposed to do? If I have to read the code to figure that out then your commit messages and on-list explanations (or my understanding thereof) are suboptimal. You're cleaning up some files in logs/refs and I'm wondering - which command does that automatically (after your series) and - in which circumstances (only --orphan or more) superfluous files were left there before. If you're not willing to answer that I'm simply not reading the code. One reviewer less. 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