On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:35:54PM -0300, Gabriel Souza Franco wrote: > > The code looks good to me. Do we need documentation or test updates? > > > > Here's a test that can be squashed in. For documentation, it looks like > > we don't cover the "<sha1> <ref>" form at all. That's maybe OK, as it's > > mostly for internal use by remote-http (though fetch-pack _is_ plumbing, > > so perhaps some other remote-* could make use of it). But perhaps we > > should document that "<sha1>" should work. > > Thanks for providing a test, I hadn't looked up those yet. For > documentation, should > it be on the same patch or a new one? Also, I'm not exactly sure how > to word that <refs>... > can also contain a hash instead of a ref.
I think it make sense as part of the same patch. I guess you could still call the argument "<refs>" even though it takes more now, and just explain the new feature in the appropriate section. I can't think of a better word to use (somehow "<objects>" feels too broad, and the primary use would still be a list of refs). -Peff -- 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
