| Message ID | 20240202150434.11256-2-shyamthakkar001@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | add-patch: Support '@' as a synonym for 'HEAD' | expand |
diff --git a/add-patch.c b/add-patch.c index 79eda168eb..68f525b35c 100644 --- a/add-patch.c +++ b/add-patch.c @@ -1729,14 +1729,6 @@ int run_add_p(struct repository *r, enum add_p_mode mode, if (mode == ADD_P_STASH) s.mode = &patch_mode_stash; else if (mode == ADD_P_RESET) { - /* - * NEEDSWORK: Instead of comparing to the literal "HEAD", - * compare the commit objects instead so that other ways of - * saying the same thing (such as "@") are also handled - * appropriately. - * - * This applies to the cases below too. - */ if (!revision || !strcmp(revision, "HEAD")) s.mode = &patch_mode_reset_head; else
The comment suggested to compare commit objects instead of string comparison to 'HEAD' for supporting more ways of saying 'HEAD' (e.g. '@'). However, this approach has unintended behavior of also counting a non-checked out branch pointing to same commit as HEAD, as HEAD. This would cause confusion to the user. Junio described it best as[1]: "Users may consider 'HEAD' and '@' the same and may want them to behave the same way, but the user, when explicitly naming '$branch', means they want to "check contents out of that OTHER thing named '$branch', not the current branch"; it may or may not happen to be pointing at the same commit as HEAD, but if the user meant to say "check contents out of the current commit, (partially) reverting the local changes I have", the user would have said HEAD. After all, the user may not even be immediately aware that '$branch' happens to point at the same commit as HEAD." [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqmssohu69.fsf@gitster.g/ Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com> --- add-patch.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)