On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:17 AM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > 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?
ok, will do. Thanks, Stefan
