From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-send-pack: don't consider branch lagging behind as errors. Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20080628043440.GD9451@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1213872715-11182-1-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <20080619133747.GA31209@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080619135159.GA19560@artemis.madism.org> <20080619151110.GA31654@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080626075036.GA25770@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vfxr0sj61.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080628043338.GC9451@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Pierre Habouzit , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 28 06:35:40 2008 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 1KCS9y-0002Fw-Tp for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:35:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751827AbYF1Een (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751807AbYF1Een (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:43 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2432 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751796AbYF1Eem (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:42 -0400 Received: (qmail 8559 invoked by uid 111); 28 Jun 2008 04:34:41 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:41 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:34:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080628043338.GC9451@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:33:38AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I think (1) should be implemented not as "this src ref and this dst ref > do not match" but rather "this pair is up to date". And given that, I > think that is basically the same as my proposal, except that the > "push.rewindIsUpToDate" config variable would only be respected for a > "matching refs" push. Which does feel a little inconsistent, as I noted > in my previous mail, but I think it DWYM. Where of course if we take "Y" in DWYM to be Pierre, he has already said that's what he meant. :) -Peff