Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> a) Represent detached HEAD with a non-NULL "struct branch". This will
>> let us continue using the remote_state backpointer, which makes many
>> interfaces clean, but is somewhat invasive, error-prone and it uses
>> "struct branch" for something that is not a branch, which is itself
>> an error-prone interface.
>
> I'd rather not to go there.
Actually, I take half of that back, as I think this would be the
best direction in the longer term, and it conceptually is sound.
After all, detached HEAD is not all that special--- when we ask for
the "current branch" and the HEAD happens to be detached, we treat
it as a perfectly valid state and behave as if we are on that
unnamed branch. The state probably deserves to be represented as a
"struct branch" instance.
I do agree with you that this approach would involve significant
short-term pain, as a lot of existing code may say "NULL is how we
represent detached HEAD" and they have to be identified and upgraded
before the above plan calls for.
So, I tend to think that in the shorter term, perhaps a safer
variant of (c) that allows us to ask "not-current@{push}" would be a
good way to go, but when things have stabilized, we should revisit
and see if it is feasible to represent a detached HEAD state with an
instance of "struct branch" and how simpler the interface would become
when we did so.
Thanks.
