On 08-abr-2023 15:45:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not know why you are
> arguing against my suggestion to improve your proposed log message.
Sorry, that's not my intention. The recommendation still stands and the
message was not clear about it.
> >> Stepping back a bit. What is the ultimate goal for this change?
> >
> > Of course, as you pointed out, there are usages where a computed value
> > is used, perhaps coming from the user, which might end up specifying
> > "HEAD". Those usages of branch_get() are not considered here. Not even
> > indirect ones.
>
> That is what I found problematic, because I do not think this
> particular change will get us closer to the endgame of not feedling
> "" or "HEAD", if ...
The objective in this patch is to avoid having in the codebase
branch_get("HEAD") in favor of branch_get(NULL). Because that's what we
recommend and, anyway, a smart compiler is going to optimize out that
strcmp with two literals. Therefore, we follow the recommendations and
save some compiler effort in the way.
But, branch_get() cannot stop supporting a computed value that ends
being "HEAD", as a way to refer to the current branch. However, maybe
you are suggesting so...
