From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Tardieu Subject: Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:08 +0100 Organization: RFC 1149 (see http://www.rfc1149.net/) Message-ID: <2008-10-30-16-04-08+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> References: <18696.32778.842933.486171@lisa.zopyra.com> <1225343538.10803.9.camel@maia.lan> <18697.41702.241183.408377@lisa.zopyra.com> <18697.42140.459170.891195@lisa.zopyra.com> <4909A7C4.30507@op5.se> <2008-10-30-14-52-52+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> <4909BF58.9010500@op5.se> <2008-10-30-15-23-16+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> <4909CABD.1040708@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Bill Lear , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 30 16:06:18 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1KvZ5t-00013h-FL for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:05:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755397AbYJ3PEN (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:04:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755378AbYJ3PEN (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:04:13 -0400 Received: from zoidberg.rfc1149.net ([91.121.19.179]:47773 "EHLO zoidberg.rfc1149.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755222AbYJ3PEM (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:04:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zoidberg.rfc1149.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E4B1114BD; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:11 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc1149.net Received: from zoidberg.rfc1149.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zaphod.rfc1149.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kboz5dIvPQ3O; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail2.rfc1149.net (willow.rfc1149.net [IPv6:2001:6f8:37a:2::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail2.rfc1149.net", Issuer "rfc1149.net" (verified OK)) by zoidberg.rfc1149.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4717111467; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.rfc1149.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F74CC40BC; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail2.rfc1149.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKEKqz2n-LvI; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail2.rfc1149.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 032BAC40BD; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4909CABD.1040708@op5.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-WWW: http://www.rfc1149.net/sam X-Jabber: (see http://www.jabber.org/) X-OpenPGP-Fingerprint: 79C0 AE3C CEA8 F17B 0EF1 45A5 F133 2241 1B80 ADE6 (see http://www.gnupg.org/) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: * Andreas Ericsson [2008-10-30 15:54:53 +0100] > Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't my suggestion of not trying to > push (even matching) branches that haven't been updated since we last > fetched from the remote do exactly the same thing for your particular > use-case, but without syntax change and all the annoying minor parts > that it entails? Not exactly. I often do some work on a branch which does not mandate a topic branch and have to switch branches to fix a bug for example. This would continue to push unterminated changes as well. Typical use case, which happens (to me) quite frequently: % git checkout master [start new feature, estimated implementation time 15 minutes] % git commit -m "Reorganize foobar in previous of xyzzy." (note that I'm not sure that I will keep it, I'll know that later when my next commit is ready, maybe in 10 minutes, no need for a topic branch) [mail from a customer, "I noticed some strange behaviour here" -- let's fix it] % git checkout 2.0-beta1-release-candidate [fix strange behaviour and add new test] [test locally] % git commit -m "Fix strange behaviour baz." % git push (so that it goes to the buildfarm for QA testing) Argh, "master" has been pushed as well. Ok, I could have done % git branch (because I know I am on the right branch but do not necessarily remember its full name all the time) % git push origin 2.0-beta1-release-candidate or I could have started a topic branch, but I often push 2 or 3 commits at a time instead, the first one being a refactoring of existing code to ease the subsequent one. >>From what I have seen, people I am working with often have the same workflow (do not systematically start a topic branch when in active development mode) > Define "many". Perhaps as often as 2-3 times per day. Not very often, > but frequent enough that I definitely want some short sweet way of > doing it. OTOH, I also find the "rejected" messages annoying, and I > definitely feel one could do something about them. However, it's my > birthday today and I plan on being far too drunk/hungover the entire > weekend for me to take any actions in that direction. Happy birthday :)