From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:43:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] push: further clean up fields of "struct ref"
Message-ID: <20130123064357.GA10306@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1358836230-9197-2-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com>

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:30:28PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The "nonfastforward" and "update" fields are only used while
> deciding what value to assign to the "status" locally in a single
> function.  Remove them from the "struct ref".
> 
> The "requires_force" field is not used to decide if the proposed
> update requires a --force option to succeed, or to record such a
> decision made elsewhere.  It is used by status reporting code that
> the particular update was "forced".  Rename it to "forced_udpate",

Typo.

> and move the code to assign to it around to further clarify how it
> is used and what it is used for.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
> 
>  * The "update" removal in v1 has been moved to this.
> 
>  cache.h     |  4 +---
>  remote.c    | 16 ++++++----------
>  transport.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Looks much better.

I wondered briefly why nonfastforward was even there, as I recall that I
was the one who added it many years ago. It turns out that it used to
serve the purpose of the new forced_update, but Chris's series from a
few months ago split it out to "nonfastforward" and "not_forwardable",
and then added "requires_force" to give a single flag that is set in
either case.

So I think your simplification is correct; the first two can be local
variables, and the only thing that matters to carry forward is
requires_force (and I agree that forced_update is a better name).

-Peff