Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/13] the refs-transactions-reflog series

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:53:43 -0800

Hi,

Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 09:29 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:

>> This is the whole refs-transactions-reflog series[1],
>> which was in discussion for a bit already. It applies to origin/master.
>
> I am still unhappy with the approach of this series, for the reasons
> that I explained earlier [1]. In short, I think that the abstraction
> level is wrong. In my opinion, consumers of the refs API should barely
> even have to *know* about reflogs, let alone implement reflog expiration
> themselves.

Would it make sense to propose competing documentation patches (to
Documentation/technical/api-ref-transactions.txt, or to refs.h), so
we can work out the API that way?

I don't think the API questions that we're talking about would end up
affecting the details of how the files backend implements them too
much.

Jonathan