On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:08:03AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Thus nobody should actually look at the reflog entry info we return. But
> we'll still put in some fake values just to be on the safe side, since
> this is such a subtle and confusing interface. Likewise, we'll document
> what's going on in a comment above the function declaration. If this
> were a function with a lot of callers, the footgun would probably not be
> worth it. But it has only ever had two callers in its 18-year existence,
> and it seems unlikely to grow more. So let's hold our noses and let
> users enjoy the convenience of a simulated ref@{0}.
Obviously I'm sympathetic to Patrick's position that this empty-reflog
special case is kind of gross. ;)
That's one of the reasons I split this out from patch 2; we can see
exactly what must be done to make each case work. And in fact I had
originally started to write a patch that simply changed t1508 to expect
failure. I could still be persuaded to go that way if anybody feels
strongly.
-Peff
