Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: >> We could reduce the number from two to one by providing a new >> git-am-status command which outputs one of "CHERRY-PICKING", >> "REVERTING", or "" (or maybe it would also handle rebase and am). We >> could also generalize it to "git-prompt-helper" or something by moving >> that entire bunch of if statements inside. This would replace calls to >> "git describe". >> >> But you probably have a better idea. > > Isn't it mere coincidence that the content of these two files looks > like a non-packed ref? Wouldn't it be better to consider the two akin > to MERGE_HEAD (which is not a ref because it records more than just a > commit name)?
That is an excellent thought that seems to have escaped everybody involved in the review. These things do not behave like refs. They do not want reflogs (and even if they had, the log would not mean much), and if we want to add more information on the cherry-pick and revert in progress, they are the most natural place to do so. Another thing that makes me vote for treating them just like FETCH_HEAD, MERGE_HEAD and other ALL_CAPS files like COMMIT_MSG is what should happen in a repository with more than one working trees. You do not want to share what "CHERRY_PICK_HEAD" means across them only because they happen to record an object name. Thanks for a bit of sanity. -- 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
