From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/. Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:05:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20120412210542.GD21018@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1334154569-26124-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <20120412055216.GC27369@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F8737C8.1020501@web.de> <4F873CD0.4050204@xiplink.com> <4F873E2C.6080808@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Marc Branchaud , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Lehmann X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 23:05:51 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SIRDD-0007Pl-0p for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:05:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762795Ab2DLVFp (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:05:45 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:60371 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755917Ab2DLVFo (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:05:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 31174 invoked by uid 107); 12 Apr 2012 21:05:50 -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; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:05:50 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:05:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F873E2C.6080808@web.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:42:20PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 12.04.2012 22:36, schrieb Marc Branchaud: > > I assumed it was an optimization of some sort -- that since tags are normally > > only fetched when they're part of a requested branch's history (right?), > > there was no point in doing submodule recursion on the fetched tags since > > those tagged tree-ishes had already been submodule-recursed. > > If that is the case the patch I just sent is pointless, but adding a comment > there explaining that would be a good thing ;-) That is often the case, but not always (I might explicitly fetch a tag, or have refs/tags/ in my refspec). So I think you want to handle both to cover all cases. I haven't looked at the submodule recursion code, but I would hope that it would eliminate duplicates (so if I get a branch and a tag that is on the branch, we would look at the commit in question only once). -Peff