On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If you are arguing in favor of arbitrary symbolic refs plus @{u} to
>> work, a patch that allows that, and nothing else, should make sense.
>> Such patch would trigger further discussion, for example, if
>> get_branch() is the right place to achieve that.
> What kind of absurd argument is this?  I am trying to solve the @ ->
> HEAD problem correctly.  In the process, I fixed general symbolic-ref
> handling and cleaned up the @-parsing logic.  Does anyone have a
> problem with the fix, or am I missing something?

This is not a fix, this is multiple changes blobbed into one.

> So, start the discussion.  What are you waiting for?
>> I still see this in the code:
>>         if (!name || !*name || !strcmp(name, "HEAD"))
> Remove the !strcmp(name, "HEAD") and tell me what you see.  "HEAD"
> will get resolved just like any other symbolic ref, via the hunk I
> added.

If you are so certain why don't you remove that code then? I wouldn't
be so sure.

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