From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Malformed branch name in fast-export when specifying non-HEAD/branch revision Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:32:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20110822213214.GA14404@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vliurd62x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110817231922.GA28966@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110822161932.GA1945@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110822175705.GB1945@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vpqjxuogr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Elijah Newren , Owen Stephens , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 22 23:32:22 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 1Qvc6Y-0003w9-59 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:32:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753034Ab1HVVcS (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:32:18 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:51726 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751204Ab1HVVcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:32:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 20323 invoked by uid 107); 22 Aug 2011 21:32:58 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:32:58 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:32:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vpqjxuogr.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 22, 2011 at 02:27:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Yeah, the behavior of your patch looks fine to me. I thought the point > > in contention was that having export understand refspecs would fix a lot > > of _other_ cases, too. > > Perhaps if we added refspecs we could cover other cases, too, but I do not > think we need to require the patch to cover additional cases. The more > problematic was that the particular implementation in the patch smelled > bad. OK. I didn't look at that at all. I just wanted to express my support for "refspecs would solve other problems, too". :) -Peff