Re: Truncating HEAD reflog on branch move

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> There's some magic in fake_reflog_parent() when we hit an entry with a
> ...
> This whole fake-parents things does just feel like a gigantic hack,
> though.
> ...
> It seems like we should be able to just walk backwards down the
> reflog list and show the entries. The revision machinery already
> special-cases a bunch of reflog-walk bits; I don't know that adding one
> or two more would be the end of the world.

Unfortunate but I tend to agree that at least such an addition would
make the "gigantic hack" a bit more complete one ;-)

> diff --git a/reflog-walk.c b/reflog-walk.c
> index ed99437ad..b7e489ad3 100644
> --- a/reflog-walk.c
> +++ b/reflog-walk.c
> @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void fake_reflog_parent(struct reflog_walk_info *info, struct commit *commit)
>  		/* a root commit, but there are still more entries to show */
>  		reflog = &commit_reflog->reflogs->items[commit_reflog->recno];
>  		logobj = parse_object(&reflog->noid);
> +		if (!logobj)
> +			logobj = parse_object(&reflog->ooid);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!logobj || logobj->type != OBJ_COMMIT) {

We already have a loop to find an entry that is a commit that
discards any non-commit object before the pre-context of this hunk.
This "oops, old side is NULL so let's cover it up by using the new
side" kicks in after that.  I wonder if we can roll that cover-up
logic into the loop, perhaps like

	do {
		reflog = &commit_reflog->...[recno];
		commit_reflog->recno--;
-		logobj = parse_object(&reflog->ooid);
+		logobj = parse_object(is_null_oid(&reflog->ooid) 
+				? &reflog->noid : &reflog->ooid);
-	} while (commit_reflog->recno && (logobj && logobj->type != OBJ_COMMIT));
+	} while (commit_reflog->recno && (!logobj || logobj->type != OBJ_COMMIT));
-
-	if (!logobj && commit_reflog->recno >= 0 && is_null_oid(&reflog->ooid)) {
-		/* a root commit ... */
-		reflog = &commit_reflog->...[recno];
-		logobj = parse_object(&reflog->noid);
-	}

which may deal with your "both old and new sides were  NULL" case
better.