Re: [PATCHv3 00/13] the refs-transactions-reflog series
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 4, 2014, 17:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20141204175343.GA9992@google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <54809577.4080302@alum.mit.edu>
Hi,
Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 09:29 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
>> This is the whole refs-transactions-reflog series[1], >> which was in discussion for a bit already. It applies to origin/master. > > I am still unhappy with the approach of this series, for the reasons > that I explained earlier [1]. In short, I think that the abstraction > level is wrong. In my opinion, consumers of the refs API should barely > even have to *know* about reflogs, let alone implement reflog expiration > themselves.
Would it make sense to propose competing documentation patches (to Documentation/technical/api-ref-transactions.txt, or to refs.h), so we can work out the API that way?
I don't think the API questions that we're talking about would end up affecting the details of how the files backend implements them too much.
Jonathan