From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Confusing git pull error message Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20090913213609.GA6993@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <43d8ce650909121301i4450489dhf475ff6894394a5f@mail.gmail.com> <20090912211119.GA30966@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v1vmar353.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090913204231.GA8654@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vfxaqpnpa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: John Tapsell , Git List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 13 23:36:17 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 1Mmwk4-0002qq-SC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:36:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755173AbZIMVgI (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754942AbZIMVgI (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:08 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:40260 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754461AbZIMVgH (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 20626 invoked by uid 107); 13 Sep 2009 21:36:28 -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/0.40) with ESMTPA; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:28 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:36:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vfxaqpnpa.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 Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:57:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > What you have here is precisely what we observed. But I think one of the > > complaints was to say more explicitly "that ref doesn't exist on the > > remote", which I think should be the case if we have got to this point > > (anything else would have triggered an error in fetch). > > Wouldn't you get into the situation with this? > > [remote "origin"] > fetch = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master > [branch "master"] > remote = origin > merge = refs/heads/next > > I think saying "does not exist" will repeat the same mistake of > overguessing you are trying to rectify. You are right, of course. I think your wording makes sense, then (otherwise we get stuck with "well, we didn't fetch it. Maybe because it didn't exist. Or maybe because your configuration didn't include it."). -Peff