Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> +/* >>> + * Creates a new branch in repository and its submodules (and its >>> + * submodules, recursively). Besides these exceptions, the parameters >>> + * function identically to create_branch(): >>> + * >>> + * - start_name is the name of the ref, in repository r, that the new >>> + * branch should start from. In submodules, branches will start from >>> + * the respective gitlink commit ids in start_name's tree. >>> + * >>> + * - tracking_name is the name used of the ref that will be used to set >>> + * up tracking, e.g. origin/main. This is propagated to submodules so >>> + * that tracking information will appear as if the branch branched off >>> + * tracking_name instead of start_name (which is a plain commit id for >>> + * submodules). If omitted, start_name is used for tracking (just like >>> + * create_branch()). >>> + * >>> + */ >>> +void create_branches_recursively(struct repository *r, const char *name, >>> + const char *start_name, >>> + const char *tracking_name, int force, >>> + int reflog, int quiet, enum branch_track track, >>> + int dry_run); >> >> Instead of taking in "name", "start_name", and "tracking_name", could we >> take in "name", "oid", and "tracking_name"? That way, it's clearer what >> each parameter is used for. > > I used start_name to mirror create_branches(), but start_name makes less > sense here because it's ambiguous. > > Since the start_name is always an oid or NULL, this makes sense. I'll do > this. Rereading the code, I realise that start_name isn't guaranteed to be an oid or NULL. When create_branches_recursively() is called at the root level i.e. cmd_branch(), start_name is a user-given revision which may or may not be an object id. In that scenario, tracking_name is NULL to indicate that we would like to track start_name. I can still pass only oids, but that would require parsing the revision in cmd_branch() itself, and that seems like a violation of the layering we have set up. Instead, I'll try to find an accurate, but more descriptive name than start_name.
