Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:27:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I had the same trouble wording. Another thing I noticed was that I
>> deliberately left it vague what "default" this does not override,
>> because it appears to me that those who do not set logallrefupdates
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:27:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I had the same trouble wording. Another thing I noticed was that I
> deliberately left it vague what "default" this does not override,
> because it appears to me that those who do not set logallrefupdates
> will get the compiled-in
Jeff King writes:
> Should this perhaps say "currently" or "this may change in the future",
> so that people (including those who might want to fix it later) know
> that it's a limitation and not intentional?
Good point.
> I'd also probably say it a little shorter, like:
>
> The negated form
> The negated form `--no-create-reflog` only overrides an earlier
> `--create-reflog`, but currently does not negate the setting of
> `core.logallrefupdates`.
Even better than Junio's version. I especially like that it mentions
where the default setting comes from.
the setting of
>> core.logallrefupdates.
This corner case is quite important. Glad you thought about it!
> -- >8 --
> From: Cornelius Weig
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:07:27 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: add note about ignoring '--no-create-reflog'
>
> The comma
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:11:57PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
> index 5516a47b54..102e426fd8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
> @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ OPTIONS
> based sha1
o one, how about this as an amend?
-- >8 --
From: Cornelius Weig
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:07:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] doc: add note about ignoring '--no-create-reflog'
The commands git-branch and git-tag accept the '--create-reflog'
option, and create reflog even when core.lo
cornelius.w...@tngtech.com writes:
> From: Cornelius Weig
>
> The commands git-branch and git-tag accept a `--create-reflog` argument.
For the purpose of contrasting the above with "--no-create-reflog",
I find it a bit too weak to just say "accept". How about
The commands git-branch and gi
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:30:38PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Notes:
> > In a previous discussion
> > () it
> > was found that git-branch and git-tag accept a "--no-create-reflog"
> > argument,
> > but it has no effect, does not produce a warning, and is undocumented.
>
> Read
From: Cornelius Weig
The commands git-branch and git-tag accept a `--create-reflog` argument.
On the other hand, the negated form `--no-create-reflog` is accepted as
a valid option but has no effect. This silent noop may puzzle users.
To communicate that this behavior is intentional, add a short
10 matches
Mail list logo
