On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 13:40 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The --notes and --ref parameter for selecting which notes ref to
> > operate
> > on are based off of expand_notes_ref functionality. The
> > documentation
> > mentioned that an unqualified ref argument would be taken as under
> > `refs/notes/`. However, this does not clearly indicate that
> > `refs/heads/master` will expand to `refs/notes/refs/heads/master`,
> > so
> > document this behavior.
> >
> > Add a further test for the expected behavior of git notes --ref
> > refs/heads/master get-ref as well, to ensure future patches do not
> > break
> > this assumption.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Looks OK to a cursory read, but I find "even if it is qualified
> under some other location" a bit tiring to read without adding much
> value. To readers who consider "other" in that phrase to be clear
> enough (i.e. "location other than refs/notes"), it is totally
> redundant. To other readers who feel "other" in that phrase to be
> under qualified (i.e. "location other than what???"), it is not
> informative enough. Middle-ground readers who would not know if
> "refs/a" is inside or outside some "other" location, it is confusing.
>
> After all, "a/b" is qualified under some location (i.e. a/) other
> than "refs/notes/", and it does mean "refs/notes/a/b".
>
> How about phrasing it totally differently?
>
> The ref specifies the full refname when it begins with
> `refs/notes/`; otherwise `ref/notes/` is prefixed to form a
> full name of the ref.
>
> I think that would remove the need to illustrate with concrete
> examples like refs/heads/blah.
>
Yes, let's go with that.
Regards,
Jake��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�