On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> But why? I'm not familiar with branch_get, but my intuition tells me
>> you are changing the behavior, and now branch_get() is doing something
>> it wasn't intended to do. And for what?
>
> Why is there a commit message? I've explained what the behavior change is.
Not good enough.
>> Your rationale is that it fixes the test cases below, but that's not
>> reason enough, since there are other ways to fix them, as my patch
>> series shows.
>
> For what exactly. To fix a real bug: H@{u} and @@{u} don't work where
> either H or @ are symbolic refs. I want custom symbolic refs, because
> they are useful. In other words, "HEAD" is not a sacred symbolic ref.
As I said, the @@{u} thing can be fixed through other ways.
Moreover, "HEAD" is still a special case in remote.c::branch_get()
that you just modified.
>> I think these are two patches should be introduced separately, and
>> with a reason for them to exist independent of each other.
>
> I cannot justify the remote.c patch without the "@{" change.
That's what I thought.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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