From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: GIT PULL] ext4 updates for 3.5 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:38:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20120601203836.GB19987@thunk.org> References: <20120601174336.GA15778@thunk.org> <7v8vg63lri.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v4nqu3lhy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 01 22:38:48 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 1SaYcP-0006jF-4h for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:38:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754906Ab2FAUik (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:38:40 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:47097 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753782Ab2FAUij (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:38:39 -0400 Received: from root (helo=tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SaYcH-0007yh-7R; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:38:37 +0000 Received: from tytso by tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SaYcG-0005E8-Af; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:38:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v4nqu3lhy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: One other thought. One of the reasons why I used "dev" and not "ext4_for_linus" in my git request-pull command line was because that several months ago I had created a branch called ext4_for_linus, and I hadn't gotten around to deleting it, so I figured I'd just use "dev" instead, since it was non-ambiguous. If there is a case where there is both tag and a branch with the same name, it might be a good idea for request-pull not just to issue a warning, since the user might not notice the warning, but to just abort --- and make the user explicitly type refs/tags/ext4_for_linus or refs/heads/ext4_for_linus. Most of the time if the user ignores the warning about the ambiguity, it's not such a big deal, but in the case of a pull-request, he or she is going to be possibly embarassing themself publically, so it might be better to explicitly list the reason why a non-qualified refname is ambiguous and force the user to pick the right one. It's a minor point, and usually I double check the commit id in the pull request just to be sure, so it might be considered too much of coddling the user, but it might be a good safety check to add. - Ted