Hi, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 12/04/2014 09:29 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> This is the whole refs-transactions-reflog series[1], >> which was in discussion for a bit already. It applies to origin/master. > > I am still unhappy with the approach of this series, for the reasons > that I explained earlier [1]. In short, I think that the abstraction > level is wrong. In my opinion, consumers of the refs API should barely > even have to *know* about reflogs, let alone implement reflog expiration > themselves. Would it make sense to propose competing documentation patches (to Documentation/technical/api-ref-transactions.txt, or to refs.h), so we can work out the API that way? I don't think the API questions that we're talking about would end up affecting the details of how the files backend implements them too much. Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
