Re: fatal: bad revision 'HEAD'
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Aug 13, 2009, 02:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090813023137.GA17358@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vab24ve97.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:49:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> When doing a "pull --rebase", we check to make sure that the index and > working tree are clean. The index-clean check compares the index against > HEAD. The test erroneously reports dirtiness if we don't have a HEAD yet. > > In such an "unborn branch" case, by definition, a non-empty index won't > be based on whatever we are pulling down from the remote, and will lose > the local change. Just check if $GIT_DIR/index exists and error out. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Looks sane to me, but see below.
Show 5 quoted lines
> + # On an unborn branch > + if test -f "$GIT_DIR/index" > + then > + die "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index" > + fi
I had a brief moment where I thought this might not actually be sufficient. That is, can somebody create an unborn branch in an existing repo (e.g., because they want an alternate project root) in such a way that they have an index, but it is empty? In which case we should be actually checking for index emptiness instead of existence.
I.e., I have done in the past (but not frequently):
git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/to-be-born
in an existing repository to create a new root. But I don't think we really need to worry about that case:
1. It is somewhat crazy and rare in the first place. Even more crazy
and rare would be to "git pull --rebase" immediately afterwards.2. If you _did_ have an index, either:
2a. You want to keep it, in which case your check is sane.
2b. You want to start fresh, in which case your next step would be
be "rm -f .git/index".The only way this check would not be OK is is if you did something like:
git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/new-branch git ls-files | xargs git rm --cached git pull --rebase ...
which just seems crazy.
So I think I have convinced myself that what you have is fine, but I just wanted a sanity check.
-Peff