From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: fetch --no-tags with and w/o --all Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:08:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20130307010829.GB850@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1879950.i2j8pjGADy@gandalf> <7vboawp4zy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130307002038.GA31571@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vhakonirb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Cristian Tibirna , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 07 02:08:58 2013 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 1UDPKL-0007iZ-Ha for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:08:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755155Ab3CGBIc (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:08:32 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:38701 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753509Ab3CGBIb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:08:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 32553 invoked by uid 107); 7 Mar 2013 01:10:09 -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; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:10:09 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:08:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhakonirb.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 Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:41:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Or we could just pass them through. Looks like this was already fixed by > > 8556646 (fetch --all: pass --tags/--no-tags through to each remote, > > 2012-09-05), which is in v1.7.12.2 and higher. > > ;-) No wonder this looked somewhat familiar. I still find it somewhat gross that we actually re-construct the command-line from the parsed flag variables. It seems like it would be easier to simply propagate the argv we got in the first place, and then we would not have any chance of omitting a new option that is added later. Probably not worth worrying about now, though, as the fix is long since shipped. The next person who is adding an option can look at doing that refactoring. And it may be that there are some options we don't propagate intentionally (I didn't look closely). -Peff