From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Soria Parra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add --track option to git clone Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1259707865-6561-1-git-send-email-sn_@gmx.net> <20091202192028.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <20091202190807.GB30778@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 02 20:27:57 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NFurl-0003DD-1N for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755393AbZLBT1q (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:27:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755367AbZLBT1q (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:27:46 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:59975 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755232AbZLBT1p (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NFure-0003At-4h for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:50 +0100 Received: from 217.114.211.68 ([217.114.211.68]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:50 +0100 Received: from sn_ by 217.114.211.68 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.114.211.68 User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (SunOS) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2009-12-02, Jeff King wrote: > 1. Add "--track foo" as a convenience wrapper for "-f foo -b foo". > > 2. If no "-b" is given, the first "-f" is assumed as "-b". So "git > clone -f foo" becomes equivalent to David's --track. > > And of course the name "-f" (for --fetch, if you were wondering) is open > to suggestion. > > What do you think? > This approach is much better than my initial proposal. Sadly I won't have time to implement this, which is why I wrote the simplest working solution for me. Fetch seems to reasonable. I can rewrite the patch to be able to use refspecs, but it would require additional refactoring to be able to specify multiple --fetch parameters. David