From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: A Large Angry SCM Subject: Re: [1.8.0] make two-argument fetch update remote branches Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:25:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4D489664.1020005@gmail.com> References: <7vzkqh8vqw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <201101312244.10047.trast@student.ethz.ch> <4D4875B2.4070008@gmail.com> <201102012339.31684.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 02 00:25:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PkPbJ-0007Du-L7 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:25:33 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751422Ab1BAXZ2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:25:28 -0500 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:53578 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052Ab1BAXZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:25:27 -0500 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16so2614084vws.19 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:25:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:disposition-notification-to:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L86n10BOf+Du+/ZlvO1bdLH4Ijf3nI1aQY9itpg8ixk=; b=jkj4MqiYjiLrNTqJ4Uink3tEDyq5mhzUunt+jkg60GQhXMuVLPXbFS4O+OeqU1/fvh /K/PWATZcc+XWSAZuGvpJsS5UFfAGo/4RNqnKl1NOos3IY+uCet5CoQy6PzGrJ23j+E8 tJ3YqOlSBxh0GMbydwRwsTSzlmtpCmALva504= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=G4yDtxdUwXEt5gbzG46BxGxnCmys6VY6lhA6FdrUbi45VpT+W5faGa1ruVp9FbZ+at hbHaLPmUQRfjP4Tdx1HzZWH0f2gFTAVrqI3I6A2lfID+My1BRi4lpKEyTwMdMsLwmsW/ qY408CcJncqjQ+4M5anDTJuSnlBIw9lPerwq4= Received: by 10.220.175.130 with SMTP id ba2mr2168651vcb.24.1296602726744; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.130] (cpe-67-248-185-165.nycap.res.rr.com [67.248.185.165]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e18sm14454379vbm.5.2011.02.01.15.25.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:25:25 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101226 Icedove/3.0.11 In-Reply-To: <201102012339.31684.trast@student.ethz.ch> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 02/01/2011 05:39 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: > A Large Angry SCM wrote: >> On 01/31/2011 04:44 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: >>> >>> Since the remote branches in some sense reflect the "last known state" >>> of the remote, it would make sense to also update them to whatever a >>> two-argument fetch got. >> >> If this is proposing to break: >> >> get-fetch ${REPO} ${SRC_REF}:${DST_REF} >> >> then I am against this since that form _is_ used and *is* plumbing. > > You're mixing up the two proposals. This one is to teach > > git fetch repo foo > > to update refs/remotes/repo/foo with the new value (maybe we should > also have it update in the foo:bar case, but I haven't thought that > through). > > The other one is to forbid 'git pull repo foo:bar' and would not > change git-fetch at all. > I'm not concerned about the pull proposal (I haven't really thought about it, yet) but I am concerned that your proposal may break (as in change the behavior of) the case I identified above.