From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Ensimag students projects, version 2013 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:23:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20130416042310.GA15676@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87r4iccgdw.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> <20130415140513.GA16154@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1uab26bn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Matthieu Moy , Thomas Rast , git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 16 06:23:28 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 1URxQS-0006NA-Es for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:23:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751929Ab3DPEXS (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:23:18 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:47513 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821Ab3DPEXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:23:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 1134 invoked by uid 107); 16 Apr 2013 04:25:12 -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; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:25:12 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:23:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1uab26bn.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 Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:53:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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. > > I think the one Thomas lists in $gmane/165758 is the one. The one I was thinking of is: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127215 > The primary reason why I do not think this is relevant these days is > because the original premise "remote tracking branches keep what the > last 'git fetch' observed" has already been broken for a long time. > The users are better off thinking that the remote tracking branches > can be updated any time (not just the last 'git fetch') when Git > observes (or could observe) the state of the remote without being > told explicitly with today's "pretend as if we fetched immediately > after we push" behaviour. Yeah, that is certainly my mental model, and how "git push" works (and how the patch I linked to above works). I actually don't care that much either way, which is why I haven't polished up that patch. I'd be happy if somebody worked on it, but I don't know if it is all that interesting a student project. It is not much development, and mostly about digging in the history of what tracking branches mean, and convincing everybody it's a good change. Which is hard for any newcomer to the community to do as a first project. -Peff