From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #07; Wed, 28) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20090130045131.GB18655@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7vwscej26i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090129035138.GC11836@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090129113735.GA6505@coredump.intra.peff.net> <351A6988-32EB-473F-B6E5-8FBB38D91F88@ai.rug.nl> <20090129115026.GB10792@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Pieter de Bie , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 30 05:53:01 2009 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 1LSlND-0005me-A0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:52:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755291AbZA3Evf (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755097AbZA3Eve (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:34 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:50078 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754610AbZA3Eve (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 26992 invoked by uid 107); 30 Jan 2009 04:51:43 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:43 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:20:20PM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > > It wouldn't help the case of "somebody > > else pushed some content that you want to pull", but like you said, I > > think the primary workflow is that you immediately push after cloning > > the empty repo. > > Also, the only way to support the "somebody else pushed already" > workflow would be to assume the user wants to name the branch > 'master', which might not be the case at all. You could make a guess that they will use "master", and if you are wrong, it behaves as now. But if you are right, "git pull" pulls down master automatically. But that is getting a little confusing. So let's push this "git push --track" idea to completion and see how people like it. -Peff