From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ilari Liusvaara Subject: Re: [PATCH] git push --track Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:27:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20100113162736.GA7505@Knoppix> References: <20100113154310.GA7348@Knoppix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Rudolf Polzer X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 13 17:27:47 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NV64P-0000LF-Pd for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:27:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755821Ab0AMQ1m (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755150Ab0AMQ1m (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:42 -0500 Received: from emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.116]:36834 "EHLO emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752373Ab0AMQ1l (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.96]) by emh06-2.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BE67C7AE9; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:27:40 +0200 (EET) Received: from emh04.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.110]) by vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.96]) with SMTP (gateway) id A0567A303D1; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:27:40 +0200 Received: from LK-Perkele-V (a88-113-39-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.113.39.59]) by emh04.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD3E41BEF; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:27:37 +0200 (EET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Antivirus: VAMS Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:55:20PM +0100, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:43:10 +0100, Ilari Liusvaara > wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 04:12:49PM +0100, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > > Of course, but I assume the sign-off would not be by me, but by some > of the git developers, and would depend on whether they actually > want this feature. It would need sign-off by you. Even if you took the code from somewhere (and then it would need theirs as well) and passed it along. > >- Should the tracking be set up even if only part of ref update suceeded > >(for those that succeeded), not requiring all to succeed? > > Good point, but I simply see no clean way to set it up for the > succeeded refs. Would be a nice idea for improvement of this. Ah, that is only known in transport_push and what it calls (and transport_push is last point to insert common functionality)... > @@ -218,6 +249,8 @@ int cmd_push(int argc, const char **argv, const > char *prefix) > OPT_BOOLEAN( 0 , "thin", &thin, "use thin pack"), > OPT_STRING( 0 , "receive-pack", &receivepack, "receive-pack", > "receive pack program"), > OPT_STRING( 0 , "exec", &receivepack, "receive-pack", "receive > pack program"), > + OPT_BIT('t', "track", &flags, "set up tracking mode (see git-pull(1))", > + TRANSPORT_PUSH_TRACK), > OPT_END() > }; Linewrap damage. -Ilari