From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin Langhoff" Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:50:36 +1300 Message-ID: <46a038f90802072050s46ffe305mcffffa068511e3b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <46a038f90802072044u3329fd33w575c689cba2917ee@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Git Mailing List" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 08 05:51:12 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JNLCh-0006jb-Ui for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:51:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932330AbYBHEuj (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:50:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760502AbYBHEui (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:50:38 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:24509 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760215AbYBHEuh (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:50:37 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so824710ugc.16 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:50:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aFT33qgdGvvmZ/z3ZUsXp3Jer/YkHKfDNUZMFIl9mXk=; b=iQty07PRipxnfzW5pofYzATe9c4Q3NIa3yYaJG4ksBIXCRldkGulVI2y5IizuP6+iWMUN9+Rv+XrE8GmQCrZ4S7zQ1rzX/sRfUtVfegr19wIChbigHHtZ+cAT5a1ClquK89KjDM7NNoU66GIje7IztRANYgmmteIVhVZSRrx03U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jzvtaDN1oxGSDKHoNiDJXHTn55NylCkhcm8z7uUwXuT2RIDZDVevy//YjJRa7TNODDxfSNpmnXTpghxgatINEFx1fOgR17oc/meTL4eYcWHZDoCrBEtmVfkL4nNDXAXzj9wptgGi8pdlSuOIEeVwaETlBUVKZMC/6xpfJPeuF9U= Received: by 10.66.252.18 with SMTP id z18mr4938297ugh.37.1202446236225; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.250.13 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:50:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <46a038f90802072044u3329fd33w575c689cba2917ee@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Feb 8, 2008 5:44 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > None of these "rejected" branches have anything _new_, they > are just stale. Nothing new to say. And I guess the natural follow up question is: would it make sense to tell git pull to do a "merge" for not-checked-out branches where we can safely tell that the resulting "merge" will actually be a fast-forward? Would that be unsafe in any way? Because when I "git checkout bla-stale-branch" to help a fellow developer again, I have to remember to "git merge origin/bla-stale-branch" to get a much needed fast-forward before starting to work. [ Or we could be more proactive at deleting unused local heads. But that's a bit of silly maintenance just to keep things tidy, that git could keep tidy ;-) ... ] cheers, m