Re: git symbolic-ref vs. reflog (vs. rebase)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 29, 2011, 22:48 UTC
Message-ID: <20110429224829.GC3434@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vk4edyqqn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:19:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Csaba Henk <csaba@lowlife.hu> writes:
> 
> > "git symbolic-ref" is a dangerous command in the sense that it can
> > change your HEAD position without updating the reflog. Is it
> > intended behaviour?
> 
> Yes, it is.  But you can choose to do:
> 
> 	$ git branch side
> 	$ git symoblic-ref -m "move to side" HEAD refs/heads/side
>         $ git log --oneline -g HEAD@{0}
>         05ddb9b HEAD@{0}: move to side
> 	e69de29 HEAD@{1}: commit (initial): first commit
> 
> if you wanted to.

I think every caller should be using "-m" these days. I know we can't _require_ it for historical reasons. But shouldn't symbolic-ref always write a reflog entry? Even something like "we changed and I can't tell you why" to cover older scripts that call symbolic-ref?

-Peff