From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: bug related to branches using / in name Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:31:30 -0700 Message-ID: <7vtzfemp4d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1214509350.28344.31.camel@odie.local> <20080627030245.GA7144@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080627035747.GC7144@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Simon Holm =?utf-8?Q?Th=C3=B8gersen?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 28 01:32:41 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KCNQj-0005ek-Ez for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:32:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759731AbYF0Xbl (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:31:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759646AbYF0Xbl (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:31:41 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:55804 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759584AbYF0Xbk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:31:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BFDE63A; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91C39E638; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:31:33 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080627035747.GC7144@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:57:47 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 30FE7672-44A1-11DD-9264-CE28B26B55AE-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:02:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> It might be nicer if this were handled automatically, but it would >> violate git-fetch's rule about never deleting branches. Hmm. Is there actually such a rule? I was wondering if it might make more sense to do the equivalent of what checkout_entry() does (i.e. remove_subtree()) when there is such a conflict. After all, tracking branches are meant to accept rewinds and anything that happens on the remote end, and having to run "git remote prune" is not a feature but is a lack of feature in the "git fetch", which may make it look like deletion is somewhat special.