Hi Junio,
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@talktalk.net> writes:
>
> > @@ -751,6 +751,42 @@ int template_untouched(const struct strbuf *sb, const
> > char *template_file,
> > return rest_is_empty(sb, start - sb->buf);
> > }
> >
> > +int update_head(const struct commit *old_head, const struct object_id
> > *new_head,
> > + const char *action, const struct strbuf *msg,
> > + struct strbuf *err)
> > +{
>
> [...]
>
> I however do not think update_head() is such a good name for a
> helper function in the global scope. builtin/clone.c has a static
> one that has quite different semantics with the same name (I am not
> saying that builtin/clone.c will in the future start including the
> sequencer.h header file; I am pointing out that update_head() is not
> a good global name that will be understood by everybody).
Please try to always accompany a "Don't Do That" by a "How About This
Instead".
In this case, I could imagine that `update_head_with_reflog()` would be a
better name. If you disagree, I invite you to propose an alternative that
strikes your liking.
Ciao,
Dscho
