From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:25:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: set REF_HEAD_DETACH in checkout_up_to_date()
Message-ID: <2aa6bd95-caf1-2882-e0a6-2fbf9b0d9741@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4313B834-90B4-41B3-B810-746EF91F8BBB@gmail.com>

Hi John

On 14/03/2022 14:11, John Cai wrote:
> Hi Junio,
> 
> On 13 Mar 2022, at 3:58, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>> "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/reset.c b/reset.c
>>> index e3383a93343..f8e32fcc240 100644
>>> --- a/reset.c
>>> +++ b/reset.c
>>> @@ -101,6 +101,9 @@ int reset_head(struct repository *r, const struct reset_head_opts *opts)
>>>   	if (opts->branch_msg && !opts->branch)
>>>   		BUG("branch reflog message given without a branch");
>>>
>>> +	if (switch_to_branch && opts->flags & RESET_HEAD_DETACH)
>>
>> It's just style thing but it probably is easier to read to have
>> an extra () around the bitwise-&.
>>
>>> +		BUG("attempting to detach HEAD when branch is given");
>>
>> I wonder if there is a valid use case NOT to use RESET_HEAD_DETACH
>> when switch_to_branch == NULL.  If there isn't, it could be that
>> we can get rid of RESET_HEAD_DETACH bit and base this decision
>> solely on switch_to_branch'es NULLness.
>>
>> But that is totally outside the scope of this fix.  I'd prefer to
>> see a narrowly and sharply focused fix, and to be quite honest, I
>> would be happier if this assertion weren't in this topic.
> 
> I'm okay with taking this out, but would be good to get an ack from Phillip.

That's fine with me. The rest of the patch looks good as far as I'm 
concerned.

Best Wishes

Phillip