On 7/21/2022 12:35 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:33 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget >> During review, we have identified some areas that would be good for >> #leftoverbits: >> >> * Warn the user when they add an 'update-ref ' command but is checked out >> in another worktree. >> * The checks in patch 9 are quadratic. They could be sped up using >> hashtables. >> * Consider whether we should include an 'update-ref ' command for the HEAD >> ref, so that all refs are updated in the same way. This might help >> confused users. > > Not necessarily so they are updated in the same way; the behind the > scenes mechanism could perhaps still be different. Just so that if > the user looks for the "list of things being updated" they don't get > surprised that HEAD is missing. Noted. >> * The error message for failed ref updates could include information on the >> commit IDs that would have been used. This can help the user fix the >> situation by updating the refs manually. >> * Modify the --update-refs option from a boolean to an >> optionally-string-parameter that specifies refspecs for the 'update-ref' >> commands. > > refspecs? Is that the term you really mean here? Probably "ref namespaces" or "ref prefixes" would be better. >> Updates in v5 >> ============= >> >> * Rename 'wt_dir' to 'wt_git_dir' for clarity. >> * The documented behavior around 'fixup!' and 'squash!' commits was >> incorrect, so update the commit message, documentation, and test to >> demonstrate the actual behavior. >> * Use CALLOC_ARRAY() to be more idiomatic. >> * Be much more careful about propagating errors. >> * Commit message typo: "We an" to "We can" >> * Remove unnecessary null OID check when writing refs, since those would >> already be removed by a previous step. > > Thanks, I've read over the range-diff and these changes look good to > me. One thing I'm curious about (sorry to bring this up so late): > "pick" commands come with the old commit hash. Perhaps the update-ref > commands should too? (e.g. "update-ref refs/heads/topic from > <OLDHASH>") I don't personally see the value here other than to make it harder for someone to add new commands (and confusing when wanting to create a brand new ref). We could consider adding a comment in the future without any backwards compatibility issues: update-ref refs/heads/my-ref # was 0123dead Thanks, -Stolee
