From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:57:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] builtin-branch: use strbuf in rename_branch()
Message-ID: <7vbpwcvb8i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <225d83c1ead50340eed97c64fbb8995017bf1ca8.1226954771.git.vmiklos@frugalware.org>

Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:

> In case the length of branch name is greather then PATH_MAX-11, we write
> to unallocated memory otherwise.

True for {old,new}section.

I'll apply three patches from you as-is.  Thanks.

Having said that,

> -	snprintf(logmsg, sizeof(logmsg), "Branch: renamed %s to %s",
> -		 oldref, newref);
> +	strbuf_addf(&logmsg, "Branch: renamed %s to %s",
> +		 oldref.buf, newref.buf);

I am wondering why nobody has complained until now, but shouldn't this be
oldname and newname?  

    Reflog message: Branch: renamed refs/heads/master to refs/heads/naster

does not feel right, even though it is perfectly understandable to people
who know the internal (i.e. branches are implemented as a ref in
refs/heads hierarchy).

Rewording of the above, if it is ever done, has to be a separate commit,
and it is a behaviour change (if some third-party tool is reading and
parsing the reflog we will break it) which I do not particularly think is
worth doing.

I am mentioning this only because I just noticed it (and do not want to do
the thinking myself ;-).