Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 27.03.2009 09:08: > ... >> After calling r-f-t, because this new code assumes that for the "." remote >> (aka "local repository"), r-f-t lies and does not give back what it >> expects, fixes what it got back from r-f-t. Shouldn't we be fixing this >> inside r-f-t? > > The technical reason is that there is no local remote, i.e. no remote > struct for '.', and I don't think we want it, because it would show up > in all places where the list of remotes is searched/displayed/... > > With ret being the branch we talk about, r-f-t is passed ret->remote and > ret->merge[i] only. In the local case, r-f-t cannot use the remote > struct for '.' (there is none) to find what it needs, and it has no easy > access to ret->merge_names[i] which is that info. > > branch_get(), on the other hand, has all needed info in place. Thanks for a detailed explanation. Would it deserve to be in the commit log justification in a summarized form? > ..., even worse: if foo is > ambiguous because refs/heads/foo and refs/remotes/foo exist then > refs/heads/foo would win, i.e. we used to output the *wrong* ref. The > above disambiguates. But I'll see if I can simplify the output based on > the necessity of disambiguation. Thanks. -- 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
