Re: git symbolic-ref vs. reflog (vs. rebase)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I think every caller should be using "-m" these days.  I know we can't
> _require_ it for historical reasons. But shouldn't symbolic-ref always
> write a reflog entry? Even something like "we changed and I can't tell
> you why" to cover older scripts that call symbolic-ref?

I think the particular instance Csaba saw in rebase may want to pass the
reason why it flipped the HEAD.

Flipping HEAD temporarily to another ref to do something, only to flip it
back before giving the control back to the user, might be something a
script may want to have a choice of not logging, so I am mildly negative
on changing the command to unconditionally log empty entry without being
told.

"update-ref" seems to write an empty entry even when not given an "-m"
option, and we can view it as robbing a similar choice from the scripts.
We might want to fix it.  I dunno.


--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]