On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:34:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> James Denholm <nod.h...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I felt that defining revp would be a little more self-documenting than
> > using $rev^0.
> That is a good decision, but as long as we are attempting to peel,
> don't we want to stop the damage when it does not peel to a commit?

I'm not sure that can actually happen - peel_committish is essentially
implemented as `rev-parse $arg^0` (though with a bit of bling, of
course), and to my understanding FETCH_HEAD will always parse to a
committish - I could have missed something, of course.

subtree Will need error-catching at some point, of course, triggering
resets or at least suggesting instructions to the user, but I think
that's a touch out of the scope of a bugfix at this point (and, to be
honest, I personally can't allocate the time to that for about a month
due to the dark shadow of academic exams). Indeed, what to do in those
cases is probably worth (re-)discussing the overall design and aims of
subtree for, and so I'm not confident that I currently know the best way
to do that.

> I'll tentatively queue this.  Thanks.

Awesome, thanks again for this and the feedback.

James Denholm.
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