From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Ensimag students projects, version 2013 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:05:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20130415140513.GA16154@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87r4iccgdw.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Thomas Rast , git To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 15 16:05:30 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 1URk2C-0005mq-UX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:05:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752660Ab3DOOFY (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:05:24 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:46537 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751327Ab3DOOFX (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:05:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 23734 invoked by uid 107); 15 Apr 2013 14:07:17 -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, 15 Apr 2013 10:07:17 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:05:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:24:21AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > * git pull --set-upstream > > > > This is vaguely related to another itch that nobody has bothered to > > fix: 'git fetch origin foo' should really update origin/foo. This has > > been discussed on the list a few times already: > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/192252 > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165720/focus=165758 > > > > which by the way would be a *great* thing to fix, hint hint ;-) and > > since Peff already posted a POC patch in the first thread, it's > > probably not that hard. (Peff?) > > My understanding is that this would be technically easy to fix, but a > migration plan is needed, which isn't easy for a one-shot, one-month > contribution. Yes. The concept isn't that hard, but the question was one of whether it would break some obscure workflows. But I don't remember all of the details; I think I gave some examples in past threads. -Peff