From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: clone breaks replace Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20110111053653.GB10094@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4D262D68.2050804@cfl.rr.com> <20110106213338.GA15325@burratino> <4D276CD2.60607@cfl.rr.com> <20110107205103.GC4629@burratino> <4D278930.7010100@cfl.rr.com> <20110107214907.GA9194@burratino> <20110107220942.GB10343@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmxnc48yt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Phillip Susi , git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder , Stephen Bash To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 11 06:37:02 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PcWuj-0005zE-RU for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:37:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751200Ab1AKFg6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:36:58 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:37305 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117Ab1AKFg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:36:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 11342 invoked by uid 111); 11 Jan 2011 05:36:56 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:36:56 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:36:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmxnc48yt.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 Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:58:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > 2. Should clone fetch refs from refs/replace (either by default, or > > with an option)? > > ... > > Which leads to the second question. It is basically a matter of saying > > "do you want to fetch the view that upstream has"? I can definitely see > > that being useful, and meriting an option. However, it may or may not be > > worth turning on by default, as upstream's view may be confusing. > > I think that should be stated a bit differently. "Do you want to fetch > the view that the upstream offers as an option, and if you want, which > ones (meaning: there could be more than one replacement grafts to give > different views)?" Sure, I think that is a sane way for the user to think about it, but do we actually support multiple views? I thought replacement objects were all or nothing. -Peff