Re: [PATCH 4/4] builtin-remote: add set-head verb

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:09:01AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> The entire series looks sane from a very cursory look; especially the
>> earlier ones are obviously good.
>
> I also think it looks good. You raised a few style points below which I
> thought were sensible and won't bother repeating.
>
>> Hmph, what does "-a" stand for?  I would have expected to see "-u" that
>> stands for "update" here.
>
> It was immediately obvious to me as "auto" (I think I even suggested
> "-a" in another thread, so maybe that is why it seems so sensible to
> me).

Yeah, latest round has --auto in it.  Thanks, Jay.

> I thought it was obvious that you would do:
>
>   git remote set-head master
>
> in the same way that you would do:
>
>   git remote add -m master $remote $url
>
> But I suppose clarifying it doesn't hurt.

I do not care too deeply if an explicit request to "set-head --auto"
screws up and sets a HEAD that was pointing at the right branch to another
branch because the command is not taught to give preference to the branch
HEAD originally points at, so I do not think I have any more issues with
the series for now, even though I may notice things later.

I have this series queued to private topic branch but it still does not
pass tests (breaks #8 and #18 of t5505 at least) by itself; the previous
round was no better.  I think it is just the matter of updating the
expected output in the tests, but I didn't look further.