From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/. Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:42:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4F873E2C.6080808@web.de> References: <1334154569-26124-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <20120412055216.GC27369@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F8737C8.1020501@web.de> <4F873CD0.4050204@xiplink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Branchaud X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 22:43:22 2012 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 1SIQrO-0002MF-MI for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:43:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762708Ab2DLUnO (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:43:14 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate04.web.de ([217.72.192.242]:39903 "EHLO fmmailgate04.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756749Ab2DLUnN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:43:13 -0400 Received: from moweb002.kundenserver.de (moweb002.kundenserver.de [172.19.20.108]) by fmmailgate04.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA89575D41CD for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.178.48] ([91.3.165.27]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MMW5u-1SNLjH108s-008GX4; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:42:21 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: <4F873CD0.4050204@xiplink.com> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:NSCc5KnqrmKa9KhPUx9oOL6oCvA9l8Vh+D+T+QKSvz8 Q4cWWk1L4I/E5htrNmhXn506iviCiMM816zX1cazo9A+gXM4WF puqU/gvcN1SwpZt5MMFbD3syYUe39GENbLgKsFkacAcYxHaxcp 4Yc5NFMNw50CMlTKwCo+11KRbNWH1E73b5iancxVRwI83k9wkW mXgXTO3zN7XxqofXJzzGw== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 12.04.2012 22:36, schrieb Marc Branchaud: > I assumed it was an optimization of some sort -- that since tags are normally > only fetched when they're part of a requested branch's history (right?), > there was no point in doing submodule recursion on the fetched tags since > those tagged tree-ishes had already been submodule-recursed. If that is the case the patch I just sent is pointless, but adding a comment there explaining that would be a good thing ;-)