John Keeping <> writes:

> The --reflog name has the advantage that it makes clear that this is
> looking at something more than the commit graph and I don't think
> --fork-point does imply that.

I think I understand what you are saying, but that "more than the
commit graph" part in your reasoning is exactly one of the two
reasons why I do not think that it is a good idea to call it with
"reflog" in its name.  The next round of update to the feature may
find a better way to find the fork point than looking at the reflog.
What the feature is meant to do, i.e. "find the fork point" can stay
the same (i.e. people can use it in their script), while the way how
the implementation achieves it (i.e. by looking at reflog) can
evolve over time, and by not hardcoding "how" in the name, the users
will benefit from the updated behaviour, without having to ask for a
better heuristics by using a different option by updating all of
their scripts.

The other reason (of my two reasons) is because I do not think
"finding the fork-point" will stay to be the _only_ feature that
uses reflog in merge-base. When a next cool feature to compute
something completely different from fork-point happens to be
implemented by taking advantage of reflog data, what would we call

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to