Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> -static int commit_ref(struct ref_lock *lock)
>>> +static int commit_ref(struct ref_lock *lock, const unsigned char *sha1)
>>> {
>>> + if (!lock->force_write && !hashcmp(lock->old_sha1, sha1))
>>> + return 0;
>>> if (commit_lock_file(lock->lk))
>>> return -1;
>>> return 0;
>>> @@ -2879,10 +2882,13 @@ int rename_ref(const char *oldrefname, const char
>>> *newrefname, const char *logms
>>> }
>>> lock->force_write = 1;
>>> hashcpy(lock->old_sha1, orig_sha1);
>>> - if (write_ref_sha1(lock, orig_sha1, logmsg)) {
>>> + if (write_ref_sha1(lock, orig_sha1, logmsg)
>>> + || commit_ref(lock, orig_sha1)) {
>>> + unlock_ref(lock);
>>
>> This is not a new problem, but the two lines in pre-context of this
>> patch look strange.
>
> Which (not new) problem are you talking about here? Do you have
> a reference?
These two lines in pre-context of the hunk:
>>> lock->force_write = 1;
>>> hashcpy(lock->old_sha1, orig_sha1);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
