Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > Not quite, as this is ... > > Looking at the test in the previous patch, I would think a reasonable workflow > in the test is ... > >> The MOVE_HEAD_FORCE codepath that follows this hunk is, eh, already >> forcing to correct the situation, so there is no need to touch that, >> which makes sense, if I understand correctly. > > No, that is not executed for now as it depends on 'old_head'.
All explanation worth having in the log message to help future readers, don't you think? Thanks.
