Am 24.01.24 um 08:06 schrieb Elijah Newren:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:14 AM Michael Lohmann
>> +static const char *lookup_other_head(struct object_id *oid)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + static const char *const other_head[] = {
>> + "MERGE_HEAD", "REBASE_HEAD", "CHERRY_PICK_HEAD", "REVERT_HEAD"
>> + };
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(other_head); i++)
>> + if (!read_ref_full(other_head[i],
>> + RESOLVE_REF_READING | RESOLVE_REF_NO_RECURSE,
>> + oid, NULL)) {
>> + if (is_null_oid(oid))
>> + die("%s is a symbolic ref???", other_head[i]);
>> + return other_head[i];
>> + }
>> +
>> + die("--merge without MERGE_HEAD, REBASE_HEAD, CHERRY_PICK_HEAD or REVERT_HEAD?");
>> +}
...
> Also, what about cases where users do a cherry-pick in the middle of a
> rebase, so that both REBASE_HEAD and CHERRY_PICK_HEAD exist? What
> then?
Good point! IMO, REBASE_HEAD should have lower precedence than all the
other *_HEADs. It would mean to reorder the entries:
static const char *const other_head[] = {
"MERGE_HEAD", "CHERRY_PICK_HEAD", "REVERT_HEAD", "REBASE_HEAD"
};
(and perhaps adjust the error message, too).
-- Hannes
