On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:08:47AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > If the meaning of HEAD changed (although indirectly) because HEAD > > happens to point to the branch that just got updated then logically the > > HEAD reflog should be updated too. On the other hand the HEAD reflog > > should reflect operations performed on HEAD. Since the push updates the > > branch directly it is not exactly performing some operation on HEAD > > since HEAD could point anywhere and that wouldn't change the push at > > all. > > > > Meaning that for the discussion of pushing to a non-bare repository with > > a dirty working tree... If the branch being pushed into is not pointed > > to by HEAD then no consideration what so ever about the working tree > > should be made, and no update to the HEAD reflog made of course. > > Right, but if the branch being pointed to is pointed to by HEAD I > would argue that the reflog for HEAD should be updated, since > operations that reference HEAD will see a new commit, and and it will > be confusing when "git reflog" shows no hint of the change. > > Of couse, if the branch being pushed to isn't one which is pointed by > HEAD, of course HEAD's reflog shouldn't be updated. I think we're saying the exact same thing. Nicolas - 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