From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: 2.0.0 regression? request pull does not seem to find head Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 00:34:56 +0300 Message-ID: <20140602213456.GB17832@redhat.com> References: <20140602210131.GA17171@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 02 23:35:20 2014 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 1WrZt0-0001Yi-K5 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:35:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751887AbaFBVfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:35:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11499 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751202AbaFBVfL (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:35:11 -0400 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s52LYR1x027157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:34:27 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-116-42.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.42]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id s52LYPBh025024; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:34:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:27:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > > > Looks like pull requests no longer work for me on linux. > > Wasn't "does not seem to find head" was very much deliberate? I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking here. Same thing happens if I use a branch name explicitly, not just HEAD. > Linus's patch wanted the users to explicitly tell the tool, without > tool trying to be too helpful and risking to guess incorrectly. So this is an intentional behaviour change? Which patch do you refer to? > > Some other trees (non-linux) work fine but I didn't yet > > check whether it's the local or the remote tree that's > > at issue. > > > > Or maybe it's a configuration change that I missed? > > > > Note: I have > > [push] > > default = matching > > configured in .gitconfig. > > This should not affect anything in request-pull, I think. I just thought I'd mention this. push behaviour is the only big incompatible change I'm aware of between 1.8 which works for me and 2.0 which doesn't. -- MST