From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] fetch doc: update note on '+' in front of the refspec Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:56:40 +0200 Message-ID: <53A14638.4060403@alum.mit.edu> References: <1401833792-2486-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1401833792-2486-4-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 18 09:56:51 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 1WxAji-0003Pt-T7 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:56:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934037AbaFRH4n (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:43 -0400 Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu ([18.7.68.20]:65526 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934013AbaFRH4m (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:42 -0400 X-AuditID: 12074414-f79f86d000000b9f-b7-53a1463ab0f1 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 83.94.02975.A3641A35; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.69.130] (p5DDB19A6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.219.25.166]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s5I7ueKB027301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:41 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: <1401833792-2486-4-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprIKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqGvltjDY4Np5DouuK91MFg29V5gd mDwuXlL2+LxJLoApitsmKbGkLDgzPU/fLoE74/CMlUwFxwUr5jV+Zm9gnMzXxcjJISFgIrFj YRsjhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYHLjBI/Nm+Dcs4zSRxsPApWxSugLTHv6CV2EJtFQFXiwrkLTCA2 m4CuxKKeZjBbVCBIYvbneewQ9YISJ2c+YQGxRQSsJX7//A5WIywQLNHc/Iq5i5EDaEGpRPeW PJAwp4CjRGfPCyaQsISAuERPYxBImFlAR+Jd3wNmCFteYvvbOcwTGAVmIVkwC0nZLCRlCxiZ VzHKJeaU5urmJmbmFKcm6xYnJ+blpRbpWujlZpbopaaUbmKEBKnIDsYjJ+UOMQpwMCrx8O7Y syBYiDWxrLgy9xCjJAeTkiiviOvCYCG+pPyUyozE4oz4otKc1OJDjBIczEoivNx6QDnelMTK qtSifJiUNAeLkjjvt8XqfkIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZGQ4OJQneFJChgkWp6akVaZk5JQhpJg5O kOFcUiLFqXkpqUWJpSUZ8aA4jS8GRipIigdoLztIO29xQWIuUBSi9RSjLsepO8famIRY8vLz UqXEIXYIgBRllObBrYClpFeM4kAfC/PmgVTxANMZ3KRXQEuYgJaoTJwHsqQkESEl1cCo4GS+ ZvX0J8KsczZYPj3Tb7x8TdWUlNcMy7R2nxKZd7/++bzHrz/Ny9LbIGk54/uH6dNunpI5orrp 76o57y3WZvLXsn3Q2H9vu0CXgLx60oXz0suKknepzXR+ddN3S82OL5Eb55YxqvKc Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 06/04/2014 12:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > While it is not *wrong* per-se to say that pulling a rewound/rebased > branch will lead to an unnecessary merge conflict, that is not what > the leading "+" sign to allow non-fast-forward update of remote-tracking > branch is at all. > > Helped-by: Marc Branchaud > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt | 18 +++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt > index 18cffc2..41474c5 100644 > --- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt > +++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt > @@ -24,15 +24,15 @@ is updated even if it does not result in a fast-forward > update. > + > [NOTE] > -If the remote branch from which you want to pull is > -modified in non-linear ways such as being rewound and > -rebased frequently, then a pull will attempt a merge with > -an older version of itself, likely conflict, and fail. > -It is under these conditions that you would want to use > -the `+` sign to indicate non-fast-forward updates will > -be needed. There is currently no easy way to determine > -or declare that a branch will be made available in a > -repository with this behavior; the pulling user simply > +When the remote branch you want to fetch is known to > +be rewound and rebased regularly, it is expected that > +its new tip will not be descendant of its previous tip s/will not be descendant/will not be a descendant/ to fix a typo, and maybe s/will not be descendant/will sometimes not be a descendant/ because sometimes it *will* be a descendant. > +(as stored in your remote-tracking branch the last time > +you fetched). You would want > +to use the `+` sign to indicate non-fast-forward updates > +will be needed for such branches. There is no way to > +determine or declare that a branch will be made available > +in a repository with this behavior; the pulling user simply > must know this is the expected usage pattern for a branch. > + > [NOTE] > -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/