Hi peff,
you made it easy for me. Most of your patch still applied, only the tests
didn't quite fit. Maybe you can have a look if I've overlooked something, since
you know the changes best?
Thanks for supporting this with your patch!
From: Cornelius Weig
When core.logallrefupdates is true, we only create a new reflog for refs
that are under certain well-known hierarchies. The reason is that we
know that some hierarchies (like refs/tags) do not typically change, and
that unknown hierarchies might not want reflogs at all (e.g.,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:16:54AM +0100, cornelius.w...@tngtech.com wrote:
> From: Cornelius Weig
>
> When core.logallrefupdates is true, we only create a new reflog for refs
> that are under certain well-known hierarchies. The reason is that we
> know that some hierarchies (like refs/tags) do
Hi Peff,
thanks for your thoughts.
> I tried to read this patch with fresh eyes. But given the history, you
> may take my review with a grain of salt. :)
Does it mean another reviewer is needed?
> I don't think my original had tests for this, but it might be worth
> adding a test for this last
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:06:40PM +0100, Cornelius Weig wrote:
> > But it works quite by accident. I wonder if we should this
> > "is_bare_repository" check into a function that can be called instead of
> > accessing log_all_ref_updates() directly.
>
> Are you saying that we should move the `!lo
5 matches
Mail list logo
