Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> But then if you do
>>
>> $ git reflog expire --expire=now refs/heads/newbranch
>> $ git commit --allow=empty -m two
>> $ git show -s newbranch@{1}
>> ...
>> And it is unintuitive. It is understandable to the users that all
>> the ref history before "reflog expire" is lost---it was what the end
>> user asked Git to do. But after creating one commit on the state
>> (or do anything else that moves the ref) and finding it regrettable,
>> "git reset --hard @{1}" should be a viable way to recover from the
>> mistake made _after_ the reflog entries were expired.
And the expiration does not have to be --expire=now; what happens
more often is when I expire entries older than (say) a week, the
reflog for a topic branch that hasn't seen any activity may become
empty. Then I "git am" the new round on the same base, compare and
then update, perhaps like so:
... git reflog expire has emptied the log for so/topic ...
$ git checkout so/topic
$ git log master.. ;# remind myself what the previous round had
$ git checkout master... ;# detach HEAD at the previous base
$ git am -s ./+so-v2-topic ;# apply
$ git range-diff @{-1}... ;# compare
$ git checkout -B so/topic
Now, I'm used to see this work after the above:
$ git range-diff @{1}... ;# compare again just to be sure
but because there is only one entry in the reflog, which was created
when the last "checkout -B" updated the so/topic branch, "there is
only one entry" error kicks in.
> Makes sense. The first solution that comes to mind is immediately record
> current state after "reflog expire", so that there will be 2 entries for
> the case in question.
Perhaps.
Or we could change the lookup side to use the value of the ref
itself when asked for @{0}, and use the "old" side of the only entry
when asked for @{1}. That way, we do not need to play games with an
artificial entry at all, which may be a better solution.
I dunno.
