Re: git pull for update of netdev fails.

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

  Hi,

Dear diary, on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:02:43PM CEST, I got a letter
where Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> said that...
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> > Dear diary, on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:28:08PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said that...
> > > However, you can tell git that Jeff is being difficult by marking such 
> > > branches individually as being rebased.
> > 
> > This is really a wrong way of describing the problem - I'd say that Git
> > is being difficult here. The point is, the subsystem maintainers need to
> > maintain stacks of patches and rebase against the main kernel branch
> > regularily, and they want to still publish their current state. So it's
> > not really any of them being strange or difficult, but Git being so
> > because it has no seamless support for tracking those branches.
> 
> So, what exactly do you propose? I do not see any way to help this 
> problem, since you really throw away history. So, the 
> git-is-being-difficult has to be taken with a pound of salt here.

  I personally don't think "throwing away" history is an issue. You can
print the old sha1 and it is still in the database so you can recover
it. And if you are really paranoid about it (in what scenario do you
actually care?), enable reflog and you will have the old sha1s recorded
there.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise.
Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam