I did something that resulted in the mailing list not being cc'd. Apologies to Junio and Daniels for the double send. :( On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:11:02AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I'd prefer to see scriptors avoid using "git branch", too. > > Unlike end-user facing documentation where we promise "we do X and > will continue to do so because of Y" to the readers, the log message > is primarily for recording the original motivation of the change, so > that we can later learn "we did X back then because we thought Y". > When we want to revise X, we revisit if the reason Y is still valid. > > So in that sense, the door to "break" the scriptability is still > open. > Over at #git, commit messages are sometimes consulted to disambiguate or clarify certain details. Often the documentation is correct but people dispute over interpretations. If someone came asking if `git branch` is parsable, I would advise against and direct them to the plumbing or format alternative. But if someone came over with a link to this commit asking the same question, I suspect the answer would be: it's probably safe to parse the output of this specific option because the commit says so. Thanks for clarifying this is wrong. > > > > static const char *head; > > static struct object_id head_oid; > > +static int head_flags = 0; > > You've eliminated the "now unnecessary" helper and do everything > inside cmd_branch(), so perhaps this can be made function local, no? > I was not sure if these 3 lines were global intentionally or if it was just an artifact from the past. Since it looks like the latter, I'll make them local. -- Rafael Ascensão
