Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am not sure if a warning is even warranted. If you decide to > replace an object A with the same object A, the result ought to be a > no-op. I wonder if it is makes more sense to > > (1) do this unconditionally and silently, and > (2) when we prepare the replace_map, ignore self-referencing ones. > > instead. If (2) makes sense entirely depends on the answer of an > earlier question (i.e. "is there a reason why self-reference is more > common than general loop?"). Forgot to add. (1) could be done even at a lower layer, i.e. the ref API could be told to reject such a replace ref creation/update that maps an object name to itself.
