On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> But why? I'm not familiar with branch_get, but my intuition tells me
>> you are changing the behavior, and now branch_get() is doing something
>> it wasn't intended to do. And for what?
> Why is there a commit message?  I've explained what the behavior change is.

Not good enough.

>> Your rationale is that it fixes the test cases below, but that's not
>> reason enough, since there are other ways to fix them, as my patch
>> series shows.
> For what exactly.  To fix a real bug: H@{u} and @@{u} don't work where
> either H or @ are symbolic refs.  I want custom symbolic refs, because
> they are useful.  In other words, "HEAD" is not a sacred symbolic ref.

As I said, the @@{u} thing can be fixed through other ways.

Moreover, "HEAD" is still a special case in remote.c::branch_get()
that you just modified.

>> I think these are two patches should be introduced separately, and
>> with a reason for them to exist independent of each other.
> I cannot justify the remote.c patch without the "@{" change.

That's what I thought.

Felipe Contreras
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

Reply via email to