From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: fetch : fetches tags? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:54:42 -0800 Message-ID: <7vabmpovu5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <479E9063.5000403@nrlssc.navy.mil> <7v3ashs5yg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vodb5qk2b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Brandon Casey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 29 09:55:39 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JJmFe-0002NR-Ee for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:55:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753171AbYA2Iy4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753135AbYA2Iyz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:55 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:56645 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752509AbYA2Iyz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:55 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7619E3A7D; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004053A7C; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Brandon Casey's message of "Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:46:19 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Brandon Casey writes: >> Having said that, I do not particularly think the new behaviour >> is bad per-se. If you are storing what you fetched locally in >> tracking branches, you are interested in their work enough to >> want to auto-follow their tags. > > How is "tracking" defined? Is this a term that implies some configuration > to link a local branch to a remote branch? Or is any local branch created > from a remote branch considered "tracking"? I probably should have said "Instead of just letting fetch temporarily store the result in FETCH_HEAD and using it from there, you saved it away; that's a good indication of you care about it deeply enough". It's really about what's convenient. I was somewhat upset that the behaviour change was not I was very aware of (perhaps I said it was a good idea and I then forgot), I didn't think the earlier behaviour was broken, but if I have to choose, I think the new behaviour is probably slightly nicer than the old one.