On Fri, Apr 23 2021, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> From: Luke Shumaker <lukeshu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> They are synonyms. Both are used in the file. ^{commit} is clearer, so
> "standardize" on that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luke Shumaker <lukeshu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> index 9d365c9f2f..d200fbfed7 100755
> --- a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> +++ b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ find_latest_squash () {
> main="$b"
> ;;
> git-subtree-split:)
> - sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^0")" ||
> + sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^{commit}")" ||
> die "could not rev-parse split hash $b from commit $sq"
> ;;
> END)
> @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ find_existing_splits () {
> main="$b"
> ;;
> git-subtree-split:)
> - sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^0")" ||
> + sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^{commit}")" ||
> die "could not rev-parse split hash $b from commit $sq"
> ;;
> END)
Not a new problem, but those error messages seem weird/bad, isn't that
message originally from find_existing_splits() and copied over to
find_latest_squash() where talking about "split hash" doesn't make
sense?
I'd expect something like "could not peel $b to commit" as the error for
both.
