From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] git-svn: don't create master if another head exists Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: <20120711012617.GA18369@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <20120624220835.GA4762@beczulka> <7v4nq0hrjb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120625075726.GO3125@beczulka> <7vehp3gwbx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120626212108.GR3125@beczulka> <7vfw9hafz8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120626223215.GB8336@beczulka> <20120709220321.GE30213@beczulka> <7v8vesk12v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Marcin Owsiany X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 11 03:26:23 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 1Solh8-00079k-Vr for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:26:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754712Ab2GKB0S (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:26:18 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:44835 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753982Ab2GKB0R (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:26:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5A91F427; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v8vesk12v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Marcin Owsiany writes: > > >> This makes my idea to do the same to "my something else instead of > >> master" much less attractive. In fact I don't think such behaviour would > >> be useful. > >> > >> I think with the suggested patch git-svn works as I would like it to: > >> - creates "master" at initial checkout - consistent with git clone > >> - using a different "tracking-like" branch is possible with "dcommit" > >> - does not re-create "master" on fetch - so the annoying part is gone > > > > Any comments? > > Not from me. Even though I'd love to hear Eric's opinion, your "I > don't think such behaviour would be useful." gave me an impression > that you would justify the change in a different way (i.e. a rewrite > of proposed log message) or tweak the patch (i.e. a modified > behaviour), or perhaps both, in your re-roll, the ball was in your > court, and we were waiting for such a rerolled patch. Sorry, I keep forgetting this topic. But yes, I thought you would tweak your patch.