From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote-curl: don't pass back fake refs Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:12:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20111219211203.GA18396@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111217104539.GA23844@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111219171055.GA21227@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vty4wmkdt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 19 22:12:15 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 1RckVI-0000tX-KG for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:12:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753244Ab1LSVMH (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:45989 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752361Ab1LSVMG (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:12:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 2527 invoked by uid 107); 19 Dec 2011 21:18:48 -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, 19 Dec 2011 16:18:48 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:12:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vty4wmkdt.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, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:28:14AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Perhaps we should squash in the test below, which demonstrates the > > breakage. I also wonder if this is maint-worthy. > > Thanks for a thorough analysis. I agree that this should go to maint even > more so, as it fixes a case to push to a non-empty repository. Do you want to squash in those tests, or should I re-send with a commit message more fully explaining the situation? -Peff