On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:59:02AM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The `ref_transaction[_add]_update` functions obtain ref information and
> flags to create a `ref_update` and add it to the transaction at hand.
>
> To extend symref support in transactions, we need to also accept the
> old and new ref values and process it. In this commit, let's add the
> required paramaters to the function and modify all call sites.
>
> The two paramaters added are `new_ref` and `old_ref`. The `new_ref` is
Would `new_target` and `old_target` be easier to understand? `new_ref`
and `old_ref` to me sound as if they might also apply to the ref itself,
for example when doing a rename.
[snip]
> diff --git a/refs/refs-internal.h b/refs/refs-internal.h
> index 56641aa57a..4c5fe02687 100644
> --- a/refs/refs-internal.h
> +++ b/refs/refs-internal.h
> @@ -124,6 +124,19 @@ struct ref_update {
> */
> struct object_id old_oid;
>
> + /*
> + * If (flags & REF_SYMREF_UPDATE), set the reference to this
> + * value (or delete it, if `new_ref` is an empty string).
> + */
> + const char *new_ref;
> +
> + /*
> + * If (type & REF_SYMREF_UPDATE), check that the reference
> + * previously had this value (or didn't previously exist,
> + * if `old_ref` is an empty string).
> + */
> + const char *old_ref;
I think one important bit of information here would be how to handle the
update from a plain ref to a symref or vice versa. Would I set both
`REF_SYMREF_UPDATE` and `REF_HAVE_NEW`/`REF_HAVE_OLD`?
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
