From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B803F9DF for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712004716; cv=none; b=IOz1hR5bk6PKZNFHFPlOGCDP+xF74gofuuqmTVFbqfFb7ec5LVLmyVzfBKrDaD+JI17mfatMnrpu8WTrR5mo2T+hZf2QcWteDpzK1PCvhgPKxXd2W43A6ajN5TnV6Bde93iTJ6IFVMAkVrdXoQQEmIlCO4HHDAL1kCmt6rM77bE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712004716; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kVN+SiXUYjNNg+dVeIcqUjKCCs5I8cqX815Y+k7pNZE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VF0kluhkNkvVC4yjGQ7mmjUV02J23HcWTQQRMMa7f7iYYiF05T+7x85yTfKsnh5thN6dfSGI5AMV//VA3tDxTj+HSqdM8HwjUkkTDGX/nGoIUcwM6XSJvPx9Xny7lo0ndrUUJ1C+0itBHpCZfJQ5Oh28v5wssjA9v4swAEKfPRI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Z2bmChOU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Z2bmChOU" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDAA1D8B31; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:51:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=kVN+SiXUYjNNg+dVeIcqUjKCCs5I8cqX815Y+k 7pNZE=; b=Z2bmChOUtUpArR+cIu9MmoNBguzq6T8FIy4u2u3dk4aAnBXqe+cEJF yP1RCLsjuvQyyo9aQLEzjHOXejPE/8K5uI5Z4QAufUBM/K4SVgqkBq/msVU4juh4 HA5IZ2VpUNqiaAEAr6U0NKlLD2/9ijHImJTSpdd8JzDgXp3Ar4EXU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346DC1D8B30; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:51:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BF2C1D8B2F; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:51:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, chris.torek@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] update-ref: use {old,new}-oid instead of {old,new}value In-Reply-To: <20240401144542.88027-2-knayak@gitlab.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:45:41 +0200") References: <20240401144542.88027-1-knayak@gitlab.com> <20240401144542.88027-2-knayak@gitlab.com> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 13:51:46 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A7F756B0-F069-11EE-8418-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Karthik Nayak writes: > From: Karthik Nayak > > The `git-update-ref` command is used to modify references. The usage of > {old,new}value in the documentation refers to the OIDs. This is fine > since the command only works with regular references which hold OIDs. > But if the command is updated to support symrefs, we'd also be dealing > with {old,new}-refs. > > To improve clarity around what exactly {old,new}value mean, let's rename > it to {old,new}-oid. > > Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak > --- > Documentation/git-update-ref.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > builtin/update-ref.c | 26 +++++++------- > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) Did you run t1400 after this update? There may be other tests that the message update is breaking but that was the first one I noticed.