Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> refs.c | 18 ++----------------
> refs.h | 7 ++++---
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index 6dcb920..8f2aa3a 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> @@ -3490,28 +3490,14 @@ int ref_transaction_create(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
> int flags, const char *msg,
> struct strbuf *err)
> {
> - struct ref_update *update;
> -
> if (transaction->state != REF_TRANSACTION_OPEN)
> die("BUG: create called for transaction that is not open");
>
> if (!new_sha1 || is_null_sha1(new_sha1))
> die("BUG: create ref with null new_sha1");
>
> - if (check_refname_format(refname, REFNAME_ALLOW_ONELEVEL)) {
> - strbuf_addf(err, "Bad refname: %s", refname);
> - return -1;
> - }
> -
> - update = add_update(transaction, refname);
> -
> - hashcpy(update->new_sha1, new_sha1);
> - hashclr(update->old_sha1);
> - update->flags = flags;
> - update->have_old = 1;
> - if (msg)
> - update->msg = xstrdup(msg);
> - return 0;
> + return ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, new_sha1,
> + null_sha1, flags, 1, msg, err);
> }
Makes sense, but at the same time makes me wonder why no code is
moved to ref_transaction_update() while removing code from here,
which would only mean that code in ref_transaction_update() was
added redundantly in the first place.
An ideal series would have had only "update" code in _update() when
the function is added, and later with a patch like this would lose
code from _create() while adding some code to _update(), I would
think.
Or if all the code in _update() was necessary from day one, then
perhaps this change should have been part of the same patch.
It's not a big deal either way, though.
Thanks.
> int ref_transaction_delete(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
> diff --git a/refs.h b/refs.h
> index b0476c1..1c08cfd 100644
> --- a/refs.h
> +++ b/refs.h
> @@ -276,9 +276,10 @@ struct ref_transaction *ref_transaction_begin(struct strbuf *err);
> /*
> * Add a reference update to transaction. new_sha1 is the value that
> * the reference should have after the update, or zeros if it should
> - * be deleted. If have_old is true, then old_sha1 holds the value
> - * that the reference should have had before the update, or zeros if
> - * it must not have existed beforehand.
> + * be deleted. If have_old is true and old_sha is not the null_sha1
> + * then the previous value of the ref must match or the update will fail.
> + * If have_old is true and old_sha1 is the null_sha1 then the ref must not
> + * already exist and a new ref will be created with new_sha1.
> * Function returns 0 on success and non-zero on failure. A failure to update
> * means that the transaction as a whole has failed and will need to be
> * rolled back.
--
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