Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I suspect that it would be sufficient to make update_head() helper >> function take the reflog action message as another parameter >> instead to fix the above, but there may be other reasons why you >> chose to do it this way---I cannot read it in your empty log >> message, though. > > Good point, sorry I should have added some explanation about that. I > went with using setenv() rather than passing a reflog message to > update_head() as it meant there were no changes needed on the sequencer > side as it already sets GIT_REFLOG_ACTION. As the sequencer already sets > GIT_REFLOG_ACTION, and git-commit does not fork any subprocesses I don't Doesn't "git commit" run number of hooks? Is it just the current code does not run any hooks (by chance) after these new setenv() calls are made and we happen to be safe?
