Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fast-export: make sure refs are updated properly
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2012, 14:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20121102145555.GA14774@elie.Belkin>
- In-Reply-To
- <20121102131255.GB2598@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is > that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the > full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this > discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a > more full fix. Is that accurate? > > Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I > understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It > sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough > to make forward progress".
Patch 1, 2, and 4 are good modulo their descriptions. They should work fine without patch 3.
Patch 3 is a regression in comprehensibility. I think we can do better. Maybe all it would take is a less confusing description, and tweaks to the code (to loop over revs->cmdline instead of revs->pending) could come on top.