Re: [PATCH] t2017: redo physical reflog existance check

2010/7/22 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Erick Mattos [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

To make the new orphan branch ready to have a reflog on that config
was as simple as creating a "touch file" for reflog.  This is the goal
achieved by code.

I have to say that you are somewhat confused about the _goal_ then.  touch
is not a goal, it is means to a goal.

I believe you have understood the whole idea of my previous email even
though _words_ means a lot to you.  :-1

I meant that that was the code goal.  It was the implementation
objective which by itself was the solution chosen for the real
problem.

It does not matter how you implement the user visible effect, be it a
creation of an empty file, or some other means [*1*].  What matters is
that the user won't get a reflog for a branch that really didn't get
created and must-fail "rev-parse --verify" test checks that.

Another thing that could matter would be that future actions that want to
create a reflog for the same branch (perhaps after the user switches to
'master', another attempt is made to create eta with "checkout -b eta") or
another branch with a similar or related name (say "eta/real") are not get
broken by whatever you do to implement the "we want to create a reflog
when a ref is actually made but not right now" feature.  Perhaps the right
way to test that would be to actually try to run such operations and make
sure they do not fail.

You were cutting off redundancy checks, weren't you?  If there is no
reflog file (tested by "test -f"), consequently no reflog (tested by
"rev-parse --verify") and no branch with the chosen name, certainly
someone can create one the "almost used" name, once there is no any
difference from a normal situation.

[Footnote]

*1* For example, you could have implemented the feature by adding a config
item in ".git/config: [branch "eta"] need-to-create-reflog", and taught
refs.c::update_ref() to pay attention to it (I am not saying that it would
be a better implementation).

About the late parenthesis: thank God! ;-)

I don't see a need for so much reluctance: "test -f" is not a taboo
inside a script in t folder and the added tests don't change anything
about the design and implementation which IMHO is well fit.

With those two patch lines of mine "--orphan with -l and
core.logAllRefUpdates=false" testing script is finished.

Finally: you are the man in charge so I would really like to enforce
that if you need me to do anything more I will be _really_ glad to
help.  I love git and everything good done to it it is done to me too
as one of its daily user.

Best regards