From: Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 18:39:58 GMT Subject: [PATCH v3 4/8] refs: update comment. Message-ID: <466b4451015dfe4b2631f378dbf9631c04240f53.1638470403.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Han-Wen Nienhuys REF_IS_PRUNING is right below this comment, so it clearly does not belong in this comment. This was apparently introduced in commit 5ac95fee (Nov 5, 2017 "refs: tidy up and adjust visibility of the `ref_update` flags"). Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys --- refs/files-backend.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c index 4b14f30d48f..37329b98cca 100644 --- a/refs/files-backend.c +++ b/refs/files-backend.c @@ -16,8 +16,7 @@ * This backend uses the following flags in `ref_update::flags` for * internal bookkeeping purposes. Their numerical values must not * conflict with REF_NO_DEREF, REF_FORCE_CREATE_REFLOG, REF_HAVE_NEW, - * REF_HAVE_OLD, or REF_IS_PRUNING, which are also stored in - * `ref_update::flags`. + * or REF_HAVE_OLD, which are also stored in `ref_update::flags`. */ /* -- gitgitgadget