On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 08:00:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > There's a big difference though: `git reflog drop` won't ever do > > anything for a reflog that doesn't exist. Consequently, we know that our > > DWIM mechanism can kick in and resolve the reference properly if such a > > reflog exists. > > > > But for `git reflog write` that's not the case, as you can write a > > reflog message for a yet-nonexistent reflog. The DWIM mechanism cannot > > kick in here as there is no reflog. So what do we do in that case? We > > could of course just pick the first DWIM rule, which would be that we > > decide to write the reflog for "refs/heads/$REFNAME". But... I dunno, > > that feels too magicky to m Gah, another cut-off mail. This is driving me crazy. I have an idea what the root cause could be that I've implemented yesterday an hour after this mail. So fingers crossed this that this will stop now. Anyway, remainder of this mail: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > But... I dunno, that feels too magicky to me given that we are in > > plumbing land. > > > > So I think the next-best thing for now is to make input verification > > stricter by dropping the `REFNAME_ALLOW_ONELEVEL` flag. On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 08:00:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I concur. Like update-ref, a command that would work on a name that > does not yet exist, especially when it is a plumbing-ish low-level > command, would be too confusing if it dwimmed based on what names > exist already. > > I wonder if it is feasible to correct the UI mistake of "git reflog" > using the dwim-ref logic, and compensate it by teaching "git branch" > and "git tag" options to drop reflog for the thing they act on. At > that level, there is nothing to dwim---"branch" is about branches > that are either refs/heads/* or (when run with -r) refs/remotes/*. > It's sort of like "for-each-ref" requiring the refname from the top, > while "branch -l" and "branch -l -r" always limit themselves to the > relevant hierarchy. > > But it is probably not a good idea and is way too late. Yeah, I agree that it's probably too late now to change it. Whether we need to teach git-branch(1) or git-tag(1) to do so I'm not sure. It feels quite unlikely to me that anyone really does this operation frequently enough to care. Patrick
