On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> + if (remote_head->util) {
> >> + struct merge_remote_desc *desc;
> >> + desc = merge_remote_util(remote_head);
> >> + if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type == OBJ_TAG) {
> >> + strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\t%s '%s'\n",
> >> + sha1_to_hex(desc->obj->sha1),
> >> + typename(desc->obj->type),
> >> + remote);
> >> + goto cleanup;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\tcommit '%s'\n",
> >> sha1_to_hex(remote_head->object.sha1), remote);
> >
> > I guess there is no other object type besides OBJ_TAG and OBJ_COMMIT
> > that would yield something we could merge, but it feels weird that you
> > check only for OBJ_TAG here, and otherwise still say "commit". Would the
> > intent be more clear if it just said:
> >
> > if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type != OBJ_COMMIT) {
> > ...
> >
> > ?
>
> I suspect not.
>
> The point of the added code is that it knows we want to special case
> merging a tag object, and it wants to keep any other case behaving
> the same as before.
Ah. I read it as "if we have a random object, we do not want to just say
"commit X", because it is not a commit.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
