Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In case the length of branch name is greather then PATH_MAX-11, we write
> to unallocated memory otherwise.
True for {old,new}section.
I'll apply three patches from you as-is. Thanks.
Having said that,
> - snprintf(logmsg, sizeof(logmsg), "Branch: renamed %s to %s",
> - oldref, newref);
> + strbuf_addf(&logmsg, "Branch: renamed %s to %s",
> + oldref.buf, newref.buf);
I am wondering why nobody has complained until now, but shouldn't this be
oldname and newname?
Reflog message: Branch: renamed refs/heads/master to refs/heads/naster
does not feel right, even though it is perfectly understandable to people
who know the internal (i.e. branches are implemented as a ref in
refs/heads hierarchy).
Rewording of the above, if it is ever done, has to be a separate commit,
and it is a behaviour change (if some third-party tool is reading and
parsing the reflog we will break it) which I do not particularly think is
worth doing.
I am mentioning this only because I just noticed it (and do not want to do
the thinking myself ;-).
--
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
