Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Felipe Contreras writes: >>> Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code th

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved >>> around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any >>> more. >>> >>> There is no n

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved >> around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any >> more. >> >> There is no need to call this function recursivel

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > Also, a few points this patch highlights in the code before the > change: > > - If we were on a branch with 40-hex name at nth prior checkout, >would we mistake it as being detached at the commit? > > - If we were on a branch 'foo' at nth prior checkout, would our >

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved > around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any > more. > > There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of > @{-N} substituted because dwim_{ref,log}

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> --- >> sha1_name.c | 30 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > How has this changed since my eyeballing of the previous version? An > inter-diff would be nic

Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-08 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: > --- > sha1_name.c | 30 +++--- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) How has this changed since my eyeballing of the previous version? An inter-diff would be nice: having spent a significant amount of time looking at this area, I ca

[PATCH v2 10/11] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

2013-05-07 Thread Felipe Contreras
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any more. There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of @{-N} substituted because dwim_{ref,log} already replaces it. However, there'