Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
I _think_ strbuf_branchname() leaves "@{-<N>}" when you do not have
enough branch switches in the reflog, so perhaps ...
This is a tangent, but the value returned from strbuf_branchname()
is not well documented, and nobody looks at it. It might not be a
bad idea to change the return value from the function in such a way
that it can signal "I saw @{-<N>} syntax but there weren't enough
branch switches" and also "I saw branch@{upstream} syntax but that
branch does not have an upstream configured for it" to its callers.
That way, the suggested "perhaps like this..." patch does not have
to do an ugly hack: if (starts_with(bname.buf, "@{-")).
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I _think_ strbuf_branchname() leaves "@{-<N>}" when you do not have
enough branch switches in the reflog, so perhaps ...
This is a tangent, but the value returned from strbuf_branchname()
is not well documented, and nobody looks at it. It might not be a
bad idea to change the return value from the function in such a way
that it can signal "I saw @{-<N>} syntax but there weren't enough
branch switches" and also "I saw branch@{upstream} syntax but that
branch does not have an upstream configured for it" to its callers.
That way, the suggested "perhaps like this..." patch does not have
to do an ugly hack: if (starts_with(bname.buf, "@{-")).
In case it's not clear, when Junio says "this is a tangent", he is not
saying that he expects you to make this change as part of your
microproject. Rather, he's just putting it out there as "low hanging
fruit" if someone wants a small project to tackle (and indeed, it
might make a reasonable microproject itself).