On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Michael Rappazzo <rappazzo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + }
>> + } else if (strbuf_read_file(ref, path_to_ref, 0) >= 0) {
>> + if (starts_with(ref->buf, "ref:")) {
>> + strbuf_remove(ref, 0, strlen("ref:"));
>> + strbuf_trim(ref);
>> + } else if (is_detached) {
>> + *is_detached = 1;
>
> I find the placement of the detached detection logic here a bit
> strange. The only case for which it might trigger is the so-called
> "main worktree", yet having it in this general purpose parse function
> seems to imply misleadingly that any worktree could be detached. Also,
> given the current world order[1], wouldn't missing "ref:" indicate an
> error for any worktree other than the main one? Consequently, this
> detection probably ought to be done only for the main worktree
> (outside of this function, probably).
Eh, ignore this bit. My brain was conflating 'bare' and 'detached'.
--
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