From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)? Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:16:48 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfytwym5r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20050728120806.GA2391@pasky.ji.cz> <20050728153506.GL14229@pasky.ji.cz> <20050728161815.GC17952@pasky.ji.cz> <7v1x5ic1pe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050728183904.GA24948@pasky.ji.cz> <7v4qaeqrh3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050729070628.GA24895@pasky.ji.cz> <7vmzo6jbme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050729081051.GH24895@pasky.ji.cz> <7vek9igfgw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 31 00:17:01 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dyzda-0005bg-CA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:16:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263101AbVG3WQv (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:16:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263105AbVG3WQv (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:16:51 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:23944 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263101AbVG3WQu (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:16:50 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050730221648.IWGQ3209.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:16:48 -0400 To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <7vek9igfgw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:54:07 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Having said that, I do not particulary think allowing push to > write into different ref is an unreasonable thing. As you > pointed out long time ago when send-pack was first done, the > protocol is not so easily extensible, so this may require either > backward incompatible protocol change, or introduction of a new > program pair send-pack-2 / receive-pack-2. I'll take a look > sometime this weekend. Bedtime. Again, what Linus designed turns out to be perfect. It does not appear to need a protocol level change at all. I'll code up something over the weekend if I am lucky.