From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Problems setting up bare repository (git 1.5.3.3) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:09:10 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfy0tl4fd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vejgeqxd1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <87bqbisae6.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87641psey8.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vwsu5l6j8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Carl Worth , Barry Fishman , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sean X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 21:09:36 2007 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 1Icn7e-0000uy-R4 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:09:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753701AbXJBTJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753569AbXJBTJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:26 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:53629 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753516AbXJBTJZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:25 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C0E13F717; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D077140606; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:33 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (seanlkml@sympatico.ca's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:55:56 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sean writes: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:23:39 -0700 > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If your push were "next~27^2:frotz", it becomes even less clear. >> It may be that I am pushing out the tip of a topic branch I >> usually do not push out, so it would be easier for some specific >> person to build on top of. Or maybe I am marking that place as >> a lightweight tag. They are equally likely. > > But you could pick a reasonable default in assuming that a new > branch is desired with the above example. If someone wants to > push a tag, they can create the tag locally, and then push it. I think you are on the same page. We can pick _a_ default, and tell people that if they want a non-default behaviour, they have to be explicit. That goes without saying. The discussion between Johannes and I was about picking what default is _reasonable_; Johannes made it sound like branches are norm and tags are oddball. I was merely pointing out that it won't be so cut-and-dried.