Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: --- sha1_name.c | 30 +++--- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) How has this changed since my eyeballing of the previous version? An inter-diff would be nice: having spent a significant amount of time looking at this area, I can

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote: Felipe Contreras wrote: --- sha1_name.c | 30 +++--- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) How has this changed since my eyeballing of the previous version? An inter-diff

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any more. There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of @{-N} substituted

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Also, a few points this patch highlights in the code before the change: - If we were on a branch with 40-hex name at nth prior checkout, would we mistake it as being detached at the commit? - If we were on a branch 'foo' at nth prior checkout,

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any more. There is no need

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code that

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes: Through the years the functionality to

[PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-07 Thread Felipe Contreras
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any more. There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of @{-N} substituted because dwim_{ref,log} already replaces it. However,