From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved and extended t5404 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20071115042625.GA10094@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> <20071113231048.GB19444@sigill.intra.peff.net> 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 Thu Nov 15 05:26:47 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 1IsWJT-0007ys-DS for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:26:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754552AbXKOE0b (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754745AbXKOE0b (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:31 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1778 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754322AbXKOE0a (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 5886 invoked by uid 111); 15 Nov 2007 04:26:29 -0000 Received: from ppp-216-106-96-30.storm.ca (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (216.106.96.30) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:29 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:26:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071113231048.GB19444@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 06:10:48PM -0500, Jeff King 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. After I became disconnected, I looked at my 'next', and the reason for the failure to delete the ref seems to be your is_null_sha1 error-checking patch, which Junio put in next. But maybe you have figured that out in the intervening time. :) -Peff