Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 7/18/2022 3:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> ... I think I should use "branches" here, but
>>> keep the name "--update-refs". The biggest reason is that it provides
>>> a nice parallel with the "update-ref" sequencer command. This command
>>> allows updating _any_ ref, such as lightweight tags in refs/tags/*
>>> or even refs in refs/my/namespace/*.
>>>
>>> The --update-refs option doesn't create the commands to update tags
>>> or refs in places other than refs/heads/*.
>>
>> I guess it would make the choice of "branch" the most appropriate.
>>
>> I was hoping that we can repoint refs in private namespaces that are
>> not branches with the option. But as long as the underlying
>> "update-ref" instruction can be used by advanced users, that is OK.
>
> I would like to keep the --update-refs name for a couple reasons:
I do not think anybody proposed to change the name of that option.
I was reacting to your "I should use branches here", with the
understanding that "here" is this place where you used "local refs".
>> + OPT_BOOL(0, "update-refs", &options.update_refs,
>> + N_("update local refs that point to commits "
If "rebase --update-refs" uses "update-ref" insn (which is capable
of repointing non-branch refs) only for local branches, then the
help text for the "--update-refs" option can safely say "update
local branches" without being inaccurate. That is where my "branch
is the most appropriate" comes from.
