From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Dropping '+' from fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*? Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:57:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20110905205735.GA5578@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vliu8w25g.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110902000039.GB9339@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4E6088F9.5070102@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110902152947.GB19213@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v4o0uncq0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110902162524.GC19690@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110905204729.GB4221@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Pearce X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 05 22:57:44 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 1R0gEh-0007Gj-5I for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:57:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753920Ab1IEU5j (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:57:39 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:53810 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753764Ab1IEU5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:57:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 21013 invoked by uid 107); 5 Sep 2011 20:58:26 -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, 05 Sep 2011 16:58:26 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:57:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:53:42PM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > Sure. I'm totally open to the idea of making the non-fast-forward > > warning more obvious. Suggestions for wording (though I am tempted by > > "HEY STUPID" above ;) )? > > I'm not suggesting all non-fast-forward should issue a bigger warning. > pu updates daily with a non-fast-forward. That isn't useful. > > But if the local reflog hints that this reference almost never does a > non-fast-forward, and then it does, that should be a big warning. Right. What I mean is, what should the bigger warning look like? Also, you suggested caching to avoid looking through the whole reflog each time. I think you could probably just sample the last 10 or so reflog entries to get an idea. -Peff