From: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:48:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] builtin-branch: use strbuf in rename_branch()
Message-ID: <8c5c35580811191148m45cdff68vbe190ef911066da8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0811190209470.30769@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:11, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:
>>
>> > -   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?
>
> I think that was the intention.  Lars?

Some background: the message was first generated internally (in
c976d415) by refs.c:rename_ref() and thus it made sense to use the
full refname. Sometime later (in 678d0f4c), rename_ref() was modified
to get the message as an argument from
builtin_branch.c:rename_branch() but the format of the message was
kept (almost) identical.

Personally, I think it's nice if the reflog contains the full refname.

--
larsh