From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dropping '+' from fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*?
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:26:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110902152650.GA19213@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E607F27.2000405@viscovery.net>
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:00:55AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > It would be considerably nicer if the server had some way of saying
> > "I expect this branch to be rewound". Which has been discussed off
> > and on over the years, as I recall.
>
> So, if such a feature were available, wouldn't it be nicer if the initial
> clone set up the refspec like this:
>
> [remote "origin"]
> url = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
> fetch = refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/origin/maint
> fetch = refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master
>
> i.e., the non-wildcard refspec are about which branches are *not* expected
> to be rewound rather than the other way around.
I don't see the advantage one way or the other. Doesn't it just amount
to what the default will be? And isn't "not rewind" generally the more
common, and hence a better default?
Or are you saying that for backwards compatibility, it would be better
to end up with a refspec more like what we have now? That I can see the
advantage of.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-02 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-01 18:25 Dropping '+' from fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*? Junio C Hamano
2011-09-01 18:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-09-01 19:14 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-01 19:20 ` Michael J Gruber
2011-09-01 19:35 ` Matthieu Moy
2011-09-01 19:50 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-02 5:55 ` Matthieu Moy
2011-09-02 0:00 ` Jeff King
2011-09-02 7:00 ` Johannes Sixt
2011-09-02 15:26 ` Jeff King [this message]
2011-09-02 7:42 ` Michael J Gruber
2011-09-02 15:29 ` Jeff King
2011-09-02 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-09-02 16:25 ` Jeff King
2011-09-02 16:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-09-05 18:15 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-05 20:47 ` Jeff King
2011-09-05 20:53 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-05 20:57 ` Jeff King
2011-09-05 21:14 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-07 21:20 ` [RFC/PATCH] fetch: bigger forced-update warnings Jeff King
2011-09-07 21:39 ` Shawn Pearce
2011-09-07 21:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-09-07 21:57 ` Jeff King
2011-09-07 22:42 ` Thomas Rast
2011-09-06 7:39 ` Dropping '+' from fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*? Matthieu Moy
2011-09-06 7:51 ` Michael J Gruber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110902152650.GA19213@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).