Re: [BUG] branch renamed to 'HEAD'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I guess something like the patch below works, but I wonder if there is a
> less-horrible way to accomplish the same thing.

I suspect that a less-horrible would be a lot more intrusive.  It
would go like "interpret-branch-name only gives local branch name,
and when it does not show it, the callers that know they do not
necessarily need local branch name would call other at-mark things".
As you pointed out with the @{upstream} that potentially point at a
local branch, it will quickly get more involved, I would think, and
I tend to think that this patch of yours is probably the least evil
one among possible solutions.  

Perhaps with s/not_in_refs_heads/not_a_branch_name/ (or swapping
polarity, "is_a_branch_name"), the resulting code may not be too
hard to read?

Thanks.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]