From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CB620954 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753647AbdK1RQh (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:16:37 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:43186 "EHLO mail-pf0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752933AbdK1RQf (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:16:35 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f174.google.com with SMTP id e3so201569pfi.10 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:16:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:date :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i6Noh2iv1TOo+fqVpJZIJsZrLRkPl4SQ0pNgw6XEUKA=; b=Wc50lblzpEKqyeNLf70Aq1/xg0FYWVmbyHluEzePdWNrsaZr3S5bFxMNXe6+BwuAV9 kQKb62/d9ChWJxC0eL8Pxi1JOisaPVrjOdVslsX1f6+bEv9Qd9MddrHPwNVrkU+cu/f9 5xO2BxD+96FqrheS887Fp+fCW7P5SCZwcuDaMS1lSgygvTBm9GJ5RSdoSeuI3rUMdiIQ bejmu7nqIx5Y1xAdmz54sqf67Qb010+qvh8Isj96y24Gc5MFpF/jYb7Wrn+0WhuAfdF+ dahCNwS12KlVMNip+zltKfzpYWs2n3LroeMLKm5gMK4wTtzDyEnGtf2IKdziigUzz52L efJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to :references:date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i6Noh2iv1TOo+fqVpJZIJsZrLRkPl4SQ0pNgw6XEUKA=; b=KE43Qs3treAfmVMhmASJUwuErokIKrKOVZjq5519Uf3qXGJurWvk2NQzviACduWCVe 28eaMHNmryNcHHx2ZIHDgBekrOBSA9sm4a2GPjTdhsj2v5hkn+HINdlePXaRktQr/vAz RFy3f3N6mhLq8BZ23DcTn6Chw8Tjv3dNKB74DyEX5+KKIZV8i5nuDcnrwvQMeJWh6KnJ tzOIday3rTmcnYQ/YBlO3F2tiA+NPHWP4TTbuy6wQWuaStYO7FxT3n5enjmi04T7l4I9 etC7cGq0imrAlupxogLka0XY/zpgdLKdLtBpx6rUVS7a/kBs6MuBo3RXY5XTW/ObuYQm qLtg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX71gHGdbVgSBVfS8RFfqfqrt9oFavLCDK9G7sXTf5zbCtcDZHV1 xJQktlO5szenRXsBINLMZKmyAE5AAGw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaz6nfzOGUxwqKeq2laHCiQRDsXIzz6XlCnB0hXefHIBmYqVT0NCwFS+nhe/HFfxWX75NNFEQ== X-Received: by 10.101.101.143 with SMTP id u15mr35136537pgv.106.1511889394814; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from unique-pc ([2405:204:7344:993e:9a3:d467:14f5:495b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b187sm20497225pfg.109.2017.11.28.09.16.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:16:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1511885730.10193.8.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rebase: rebasing can also be done when HEAD is detached From: Kaartic Sivaraam To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <20171127172104.5796-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> <20171127172104.5796-4-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:45:30 +0530 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1+deb9u1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 11:31 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > > > + if test "$branch_or_commit" = "HEAD" && > > + !(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD) > > Did you need a subshell here? No. That's a consequence of me not remembering that I would span a sub- shell with a simple '()' when I was doing that part. (partial transition from C to shell) > Now with a proper test with > "symbolic-ref -q HEAD", I wonder if you'd need to check if the > original was named HEAD in the first place (I do not feel strongly > enough to say that checking is wrong, at least not yet, but the > above does make me wonder), and instead something like > > if ! git symbolic-ref -q HEAD > then > ... > > might be sufficient. I dunno. > It does seem you're right. The only thing we would be losing is the short-circuiting when $branch_or_commit is not HEAD (which I suspect to be the case most of the time). So, I'm not sure if I should remove the check (of course, I'll change the check to avoid spawning a sub-shell). Thanks, Kaartic