Re: [PATCH 0/5] make room for "special ref"

From: Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2023, 10:20 UTC
Message-ID: <132a3daf-23fa-4575-a77f-bdf0a96fb5d8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <321b8084-fddb-4b5d-86af-7f88cb3edf7b@ramsayjones.plus.com>

On 15/12/2023 22:44, Ramsay Jones wrote:

> On 15/12/2023 21:21, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> If somebody is reading FETCH_HEAD and acting on its contents (rather
>> than merely consuming it as a ref of the first object), perhaps
>> feeding it to "git fmt-merge-msg", they will be broken by such a
>> change (indeed, our own "git pull" will be broken by the change to
>> "git fetch", and the second bullet point above is about fixing the
>> exact fallout from it), but I am not sure if that is a use case worth
>> worrying about.
> 
> Yes, I was going to suggest exactly this, after Patrick pointed out
> that there were only two 'special psuedo-refs' (I had a vague feeling
> there were some more than that) FETCH_HEAD and MERGE_HEAD.

According to the pseudoref entry of gitglossary, CHERRY_PICK_HEAD also stores additional data (which would imply that REVERT_HEAD does too). Looking at CHERRY_PICK_HEAD during a pick though, I only see a single hash, even when picking multiple commits.

Regards, Andy