Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)?

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:56:21PM CEST, I got a letter
where Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> told me that...
> Hi,

Hello,

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> > Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:07:01PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> told me that...
> >
> > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > >
> > > > See above. I would much rather see more flexible git-send-pack. Junio,
> > > > what about changing its [heads]* parameter e.g. to
> > > > [remotehead[:localhead]]* ?
> > >
> > > IMHO this opens the door for shooting in your own foot. Isn't it much too
> > > easy to make a mistake with that syntax?
> >
> > What mistake?
> 
> To mix up different branches. With that syntax you can easily push changes
> onto the wrong head.

How? Only when you explicitly specify the remote head. When you're
explicit, you ought to know what are you doing.

> I might well be wrong here, but I think the most common usage for git-push
> is to update a public repository, which is done by one or just a few
> maintainer(s), in which case it is no problem to enforce
> localhead=remotehead. BTW, this whole multihead mess applies only to Jeffs
> anyway :-)

AFAIK the plan is to centralize all the kernel repositories to a single
one. For that, developers would generally push into branches with name
different that "master".

> I just do not see a high demand for mappings of remote and local HEAD
> names, but rather a high potential of making mistakes (after all, it is
> not the machine which makes mistakes, it's the human operator).

If you fear making mistakes, better use something which attempts to do
some babysitting for you, like Cogito. ;-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox