From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pull: merge into unborn by fast-forwarding from empty tree Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:03:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20130620220328.GA3992@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130620124758.GA2376@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8v24vd0m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130620201957.GC31364@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmwqkqzhy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130620205533.GA8074@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v7ghoqwwv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Thomas Rast , Stefan =?utf-8?B?U2Now7zDn2xlcg==?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 21 00:03:36 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 1Upmx6-0008Dz-8X for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:03:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758353Ab3FTWDc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:03:32 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60278 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758343Ab3FTWDc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:03:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 15979 invoked by uid 102); 20 Jun 2013 22:04:31 -0000 Received: from c-98-244-76-202.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (98.244.76.202) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:04:31 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:03:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v7ghoqwwv.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 Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:45:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I think I got us off-track with my expectation of ending the one case > > with a conflicted index. But caring about that is even more unlikely. I > > think Thomas's original patch is probably a happy medium. > > OK, so should I consider it Reviewed-by: peff? Yes, modulo the breakage of the &&- chain that Thomas mentioned. > > As an orthogonal matter, we probably should reverse the order of > > updating HEAD and the index/working tree, as it does not make much sense > > to me to do the former if the latter is not possible (and that is the > > case even with the current code). > > Yes. OK. I'll prepare a series with both patches. Stand by... -Peff