Re: [PATCH] sha1-name.c: for ":/", find detached HEAD commits

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 11, 2018, 12:32 UTC
Message-ID: <20180711123213.GA23835@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFW+GMAP6hwU1frm-FUVqx4pokpSQajWz7N6mGtMC-EO+01m2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:18:22PM -0700, William Chargin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > Also, I am not sure if "or from HEAD" is even needed when we say
> > "from ANY ref" already, as we count things like HEAD as part of the
> > ref namespace.
> 
> My two cents: with the docs as is, I wasn't sure whether HEAD was
> intended to count as a ref for this purpose. The gitglossary man page
> defines a ref as a "name that begins with refs/" (seemingly excluding
> HEAD), though it later says that HEAD is a "special-purpose ref". In my
> opinion, the change adds clarity without any particular downside---but
> I'm happy to revert it if you'd prefer. I'd also be happy to change the
> wording to something like "any ref, including HEAD" if we want to
> emphasize that HEAD really is a ref.

FWIW, I think the clarification to include HEAD is helpful here, since it took me a few minutes of thinking to decide whether the current behavior was a bug or just a subtlety. Your "including HEAD" suggestion seems like the best route to me. But I can live with it either way.

> After reaching consensus on the change to the docs, should I send in a
> [PATCH v2] In-Reply-To this thread?

Yes.

> Peff, should I add your
> Signed-off-by to the commit message, or is that not how things are done?

Yes, you can add in any sign-offs that have been explicitly given. It's normal to order them chronologically, too (so mine would come first, then yours, showing that the patch flowed through me to you; Junio will add his at the end).

-Peff