From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:53:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/13] the refs-transactions-reflog series
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:

>> 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