On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:11, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > - 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? > > I think that was the intention. Lars? Some background: the message was first generated internally (in c976d415) by refs.c:rename_ref() and thus it made sense to use the full refname. Sometime later (in 678d0f4c), rename_ref() was modified to get the message as an argument from builtin_branch.c:rename_branch() but the format of the message was kept (almost) identical. Personally, I think it's nice if the reflog contains the full refname. -- larsh -- 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
