shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Although this behavior has no harm for the program, it will > short-circuit the program. When the users execute "git refs verify" or > "git fsck", we don't want to simply die the program but rather show the > warnings or errors as many as possible to info the users. "info" is not a verb; "inform"? I can understand what you want to say with "show the warnings or errors as many as possible", but giving errors on the same issue many times is not what you meant---rather, you want the checker to keep going and discover errors in many _other things_, after it finds a single error in "HEAD". ..., we do want to diagnose a broken "HEAD", but we want to notice as many breakages on other refs as we can instead of dying after finding the first breakage. Dying on a broken "HEAD" done by get_worktrees() goes against this goal. or something, perhaps. Such a rewrite makes the sentence "Although ... short-circuit the program." unnecessary. > So, we should > avoid reading the head info. With one reservation. We still want to diagnose a broken "HEAD", so I'd probably strike this sentence out, and add a statement that says we still check the contents of "HEAD" elsewhere as a substitute at the end of the proposed commit log message, if I were writing it, after explaining the use of get_worktrees_without_reading_head() you did in the following two paragraphs (both of which read well). Thanks.
