Re: [PATCH 4/5] remote.c: teach branch_get() to treat symrefs other than HEAD

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 1, 2013, 18:44 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0n2odCn=GnYSXv7g113PFEX42WF1d2GBGV=ye2TuY3CHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s20F-QALd18VPHLF4Fj=eFFvXmkhC4XK__kxNhMoeN=ug@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> But why? I'm not familiar with branch_get, but my intuition tells me
> you are changing the behavior, and now branch_get() is doing something
> it wasn't intended to do. And for what?

Why is there a commit message?  I've explained what the behavior change is.

> Your rationale is that it fixes the test cases below, but that's not
> reason enough, since there are other ways to fix them, as my patch
> series shows.

For what exactly. To fix a real bug: H@{u} and @@{u} don't work where either H or @ are symbolic refs. I want custom symbolic refs, because they are useful. In other words, "HEAD" is not a sacred symbolic ref.

Show 15 quoted lines

>>         if (ret && ret->remote_name) {
>>                 ret->remote = remote_get(ret->remote_name);
>>                 if (ret->merge_nr) {
>> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
>> index f30e344..c4a3a54 100644
>> --- a/sha1_name.c
>> +++ b/sha1_name.c
>> @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ int interpret_branch_name(const char *name, struct strbuf *buf)
>>                 return ret - used + len;
>>         }
>>
>> -       cp = strchr(name, '@');
>> +       cp = strstr(name, "@{");
>
> This might make sense, but it feels totally sneaked in.

Sneaked in? I have three paragraphs in my commit message. The first two explain two related changes, and the third one shows how they are related.

Show 6 quoted lines

>>         if (!cp)
>>                 return -1;
>>         tmp_len = upstream_mark(cp, namelen - (cp - name));
>
> I think these are two patches should be introduced separately, and
> with a reason for them to exist independent of each other.

I cannot justify the remote.c patch without the "@{" change.