From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved and extended t5404 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20071113231048.GB19444@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20071112213823.GB2918@steel.home> <20071112213938.GC2918@steel.home> <20071113075240.GA21799@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071113194731.GC3268@steel.home> <20071113194909.GD3268@steel.home> <20071113230234.GI3268@steel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 14 00:11:12 2007 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 1Is4uS-00024K-Ai for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:11:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759551AbXKMXKv (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760330AbXKMXKv (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:51 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2943 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760381AbXKMXKv (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 27049 invoked by uid 111); 13 Nov 2007 23:10:50 -0000 Received: from c-24-125-35-113.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (24.125.35.113) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:50 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:10:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071113230234.GI3268@steel.home> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:02:34AM +0100, Alex Riesen wrote: > This one is on top of what is in next. It also include the check for > deleting remote braches I sent before. Regarding this one: if a remote > branch is deleted, shouldn't the matching tracking branch be removed > as well? The code in master seem to do that. Yes, it should (the code in update_tracking_ref seems to handle that case, but I haven't tested, so I may have bungled something). I am literally walking out the door, now, though, so I will be out of touch for at least a day. -Peff