Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Dirk Gouders <dirk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Brian Lyles <brianmlyles@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> + if (!resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD", RESOLVE_REF_READING, &head_oid, NULL)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Check to see if this is an unborn branch
>>> + */
>> In the above example, there is a short but outstanding comment that
>> announces a check (and if I understood correctly by [1] it is a kind of
>> trick that could deserve some more information) and it does _not_
>> comment on the result. Of course, I have an idea where the correct
>> place for a comment /* This is an unborn branch -- handle it as if... */
>> could be, but I'm not sure.
>
> You mean "Check to see if this is an unborn branch, and if so, use
> an empty tree to compare against, instead of the tree of the HEAD
> that does not yet exist"?
>
> I think that is possible, but the use of the_hash_algo->empty_tree
> indicates that clearly enough. But we need to stop somewhere and
> what we see above may be a reasonable place to do so.
>
> If anything, we may want to say why we want to continue as if we had
> an empty tree (as opposed to fail and return with an error()), or
> the tree to compare with is computed here for what purpose. But the
> name of the function may tell what this whole computation and
> comparison is for, so it probably is not needed, either.
Thank you for the reply.
I guess, the hidden question in my comment was: "Do experienced
Git developers understand the code as something obvious?".
And I read your answer as a "Yes, no problem.".
Now, I can put this subject aside and later, after more reading, check
if my understanding improved sufficiently to now understand that code
without additional comments, as you already do.
Dirk
