Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> c) Replace the backpointer with a remote_state parameter. Expressive and >>> fits the paradigm of "defaulting to the repo when needed", but >>> interfaces are repetitive and shifts the responsibility of >>> correctness to the caller (see v2). >> >> ... if we want to support the what-if callers, I >> think the best approach would be a slight variant of c) above. >> >> That is, pass branch and remote_state as two parameters, and when >> branch is not NULL, barf if it is not among remote_state.branches[], >> to protect against nonsense combinations. > > Sounds reasonable to me. The resulting interface would look like the v2 > one, but internally, this additional safety check will prevent misuse. Hopefully. Of course I think the implementation of the safety would actually be done, not by iterationg over branches[] array, but just checking branch->remote_state == remote_state pointer equality. > This "longer term direction" sounds like what I envisioned with (e). I > agree that detached HEAD is a state that should be expressed with more > than just NULL, though I'm not sure that "struct branch" is the correct > abstraction. No point bikeshedding now of course, we'll cross that > bridge when we get there ;) I actually was hoping that the time to cross the bridge was now, though ;-)
