From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: How to stop sharing objects between repositories Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20090817072559.GA9730@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090816122842.GA942@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090816135703.GA31638@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vmy5z603d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <1250475682.7155.16.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090817064801.GA31543@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v63cm3ntl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Mike Galbraith , Johannes Schindelin , Jon Jensen , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 17 09:26:09 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1McwbW-00070c-Ml for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:26:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751902AbZHQHZ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751156AbZHQHZ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:58 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:56599 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750981AbZHQHZ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 29039 invoked by uid 107); 17 Aug 2009 07:26:03 -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; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:26:03 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v63cm3ntl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:24:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm torn on whether this is actually a good idea. > > I would understand if you were torn if the proposed change were to refuse > to run without -l in a repository with alternates when --force is not > given, or something of that nature. > > But I can tell you that this "just warn" cannot be a good idea for a very > simple reason: breaking and then warning is useless---it is too late for > the user to do anything about it. Did you miss the part where I asked "should we include instructions to the user on how to fix this"? -Peff