From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [1.8.0] forbid full fetchspecs in git-pull Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:14:57 +0100 Message-ID: <201102011614.57366.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <7vzkqh8vqw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <201101312255.59841.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , , Sean Estabrooks , =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_Steinbrink?= To: Dmitry Potapov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 01 16:15:13 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 1PkHwm-0004qL-CN for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:15:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752057Ab1BAPPA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:15:00 -0500 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:44014 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751618Ab1BAPO7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:14:59 -0500 Received: from CAS11.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.211) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:14:52 +0100 Received: from pctrast.inf.ethz.ch (82.130.84.185) by CAS11.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:14:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37-desktop; KDE/4.5.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [82.130.84.185] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dmitry Potapov wrote: > As to disallowing ':' in refspec completely, I am not so sure... Not > that I think it is very useful, but also I don't see how it can hurt > someone provided that the target branch cannot be the current branch. IRC experience shows that people, while on some topic branch, run git pull origin master:master expecting it to "pull master into master" (or even worse with three different branch names). So no, the current branch safeguard does not prevent the fundamental mistake. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch