From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:54:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: set REF_HEAD_DETACH in checkout_up_to_date()
Message-ID: <b35edfb8-9b48-d5b3-8d77-cb61a22f85ef@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7d8ywaf0.fsf@gitster.g>

On 13/03/2022 07:58, 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.

"rebase --skip" and "rebase --autostash" are two such uses I think

Best Wishes

Phillip