Re: [PATCH 3/3] prevent HEAD reflog to be interpreted as current branch reflog

From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2007, 17:54 UTC
Message-ID: <200702031754.19494.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <slrnes9ga2.3l6.mdw@metalzone.distorted.org.uk>

On Saturday 2007, February 03 17:07, Mark Wooding wrote:

> And what do you do when HEAD is detached?

Well; my proposal was that when head is detached HEAD@{} would return the "unnamed branch" reflog.

However, that idea has been rejected (which I'm fine with).

Show 7 quoted lines

> I mean: I detach HEAD, and then ask about HEAD@{yesterday}.  It'd be
> nonsensical for that to be an error, since HEAD surely did have a
> value yesterday.  But it can't tell me where my current branch head
> was yesterday, because there isn't a current branch to tell me about.
>
> HEAD@{date} referring to the HEAD reflog is the only sane thing to
> do.

Well I don't think "only sane thing" is entirely accurate; I'm happy to accept counter arguments, but rhetoric doesn't count.

My (abandoned) suggestion was that

 HEAD@{..} on a undetached head would be equal to <current-branch>@{..}
 HEAD@{..} on a detached head would be equal to unnamed-branch@{..}
 @{..} would be equal to <whatever-i-was-on>@{...}

I accept (but not necessarily condone) that the counter proposal is also valid. My argument is about which is the more consistent. It would appear to be a judgment call; so I'm happy to bow out. I don't think calling me insane (by proxy) lends any weight to any argument.

Andy

-- 
Dr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE
andyparkins@gmail.com