Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> It also has less chances of creating complicated control flows
>> (especially in JGit which wasn't designed for this bit from the
>> start): the tables have to be written in lexicographic order, so you
>> only can write this bit after you know if reflog entries were written
>> for a certain ref.
>
> Correction. I wish the table blocks were written in lexicographic
> order, but they are written in order 'g', ['i',] 'o', ['i'], 'g',
> ['i']. Since the 'g' block is last within a table, we could add a new
> section at the end. My point that this is considerable work to think
> through how to make this work with JGit still stands, though.
As long as a fake/NULL entry in the reflog is invisible to iterators
and does not count as part of numbered entries when reflog@{23}
notation is used, I think it is perfectly fine to take that
approach, instead of "separate bit". I brought it up only as a
possible alternative (i.e. "if bit is on or any entry exists, we do
have log for the ref") in case ignoring the fake entry is impossible.
