From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fetch: honor the user-provided refspecs when pruning refs Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:39:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20111007163936.GA5212@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111006205103.GA1271@erythro.kitwarein.com> <1317936107-1230-1-git-send-email-cmn@elego.de> <1317936107-1230-3-git-send-email-cmn@elego.de> <20111007162625.GB4399@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1318005433.4579.5.camel@centaur.lab.cmartin.tk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , mathstuf@gmail.com To: Carlos =?utf-8?Q?Mart=C3=ADn?= Nieto X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 07 18:39:47 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 1RCDSb-0005MU-4R for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:39:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965489Ab1JGQjl convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:39:41 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:55008 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965451Ab1JGQjk (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:39:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 23833 invoked by uid 107); 7 Oct 2011 16:39:40 -0000 Received: from 208.177.47.101.ptr.us.xo.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (208.177.47.101) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:39:40 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:39:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1318005433.4579.5.camel@centaur.lab.cmartin.tk> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:37:13PM +0200, Carlos Mart=C3=ADn Nieto wrot= e: > > I assume you mean s/tag/branch/ in the last line? >=20 > Yeah, maybe ref would be better? Yeah, agreed. > > Tests? >=20 > Good point. It sounds like you already have a reproduction recipe for this, and for the --tags thing in the next commit. > OK, so take a step back and figure out what we want the rules to be > before we call get_stale_heads. It does sound like a more elegant > approach. I was trying to disrupt the callers as little as possible, = but > then again, there's only two. Will change. Yeah. Sometimes we try hard to make a minimal patch, because it makes i= t easier to review. At the same time, I think it's more important to make the code clean if it needs it. Especially when there aren't many caller= s to disrupt. -Peff