From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/3] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/. Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:30:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8DC4CD.9090106@xiplink.com> References: <1334591542-25136-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <1334614130-31826-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <7vbomqpef1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 21:29:48 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 1SKE5y-0004G0-0Q for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:29:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751087Ab2DQT3l (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:29:41 -0400 Received: from smtp130.ord.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.6.130]:56101 "EHLO smtp130.ord.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750851Ab2DQT3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:29:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp14.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 378FF1D8279; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:29:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp14.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id DAAD01D8084; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:29:39 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: <7vbomqpef1.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 12-04-17 11:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > marcnarc@xiplink.com writes: > >> It turns out that ref->peer_ref is always NULL in update_local_ref(). So I >> made its caller pass in the full remote ref as a new parameter. I also added >> a unit test. >> >> This series is a complete resend of all the patches discussed in these >> threads, including Jens's submodule recursion fix. > > Thanks, but I'd prefer to keep unrelated things as separate unless there > is a compelling reason not to. > > Also I do not think renaming of the existing parameter in the first patch > is warranted, especially when the new parameter you are adding is more > descriptive (i.e. "remote_ref" in the context of that function makes it > clear enough that it is not just a string but is a pointer to a ref > structure). > > So let's do this. I'm good with both your patches. Thanks much for fixing my work! M.