On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:49:25PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > On 24/05/02 10:07AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:09:57PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > > > > I'm not quite sure I understand why we are changing the behavior of > > > `is_headref()` here. Do we no longer want to validate the ref exists if > > > it is symbolic? > > > > The implementation does not conform to the definition of a "HEAD" ref. > > Even before this patch series, a "HEAD" ref could either be a symbolic > > or a regular ref. So to answer the question of "Is this a HEAD ref?" you > > only need to check whether the ref exists, not whether its target > > exists. > > Thanks Patrick! I think this explantion might be good to add to the > commit message. I'll restructure this a bit. In fact, we can even get rid of `is_headref()` completely as it is now covered by `is_root_ref()`, and there are no callers of `is_headref()`. > > > In a prior commit, `is_headref()` is commented to mention that we check > > > whether the reference exists. Maybe that could use some additional > > > clarification? > > > > Which particular commit do you refer to? It's not part of this series, > > is it? > > I'm refering to the comment added above `is_headref()` in > (refs: classify HEAD as a root ref, 2024-04-30): > > "Check whether the reference is "HEAD" and whether it exists." > > Maybe I misunderstand its intent though. Ah, now I get what you're saying. Yeah, this could indeed use a clarification. I'll add it to `is_root_ref()` though given that `is_headref()` will go away. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
