Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:27:57AM +0100, Jan Hudec wrote:
>
> I like the fact that it deals with both these cases, and I think it can
> cover even more. It is a general safety valve for "somebody changed this
> ref while you weren't looking."
>
>> Besides whith the update above, I no longer propose to keep any new
>> information -- just to add a safety-check.
>
> And I like that, too. But I am a little worried that the information
> will not be sufficient. You are asking for a consistency guarantee of
> HEAD and HEAD@{0} that comes from using current porcelain.
While I too find the proposal attractive as a concept, I am sorry to say
that it would not work even with the current set of Porcelain (fwiw, when
the index-base extension was done, the approach based on HEAD reflog would
not have worked either). This is because 605fac8 (update HEAD reflog when
branch pointed to by HEAD is directly modified, 2007-03-21) made gremlin
updates to the current branch tip to also update the reflog of HEAD.
If we revert that commit, we may be able to.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
