On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:48:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> SZEDER Gábor <szeder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > $ git log --oneline -1 master@{1}
> > fatal: Log for 'master' only has 1 entries.
> >
> > Annoyed, I just copy-pasted the sha and got the job done.
> >
> > However, I wonder why it didn't worked. 'git reflog' didn't print
> > master@{1} or any message for the oldest entry, but I can live without
> > that.
>
> There lies your answer, no?
>
> Each of the log entry records "this was before, and this is after
> the change". ref@{0} reads from the "after" field of 0-th (from the
> end) entry. ref@{1} reads from the "after" field of 1-st (again from
> the end) entry. ref@{N} reads from the "after" field of N-th (again
> from the end) entry.
>
> Notice that nowhere in the above sequence we read from "before" field.
In general, the "before" from entry @{N} should be the same as the
"after" of @{N+1}. Of course this is not always the case for various
reasons, the most common of which I think are:
1. Buggy scripts which do not provide a reflog reason for their call
to git-update-ref, and therefore update the ref without writing a
reflog entry.
2. A git-gc will expire entries which point to unreachable objects
much earlier, which can create "holes" in the reflog.
So it is certainly not correct to say "we do not have a master@{1}
entry, but we know that the 'before' entry of master@{0} must point to
the same thing". But it is very often a good guess. I wonder if there
should be some simple way to expose that value as an @{}-selector.
Perhaps "ref@{0.before}" or something?
-Peff
--
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