From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: I want "fast forward my workdir to upstream if it's safe" Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:57:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7vk54rvb8x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <86prekfv7z.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> <20090508023028.GA1218@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , "Randal L. Schwartz" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Eyvind Bernhardsen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 08 17:57:13 2009 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 1M2SRk-0007go-Mt for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 08 May 2009 17:57:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755136AbZEHP5E (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 11:57:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754956AbZEHP5E (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 11:57:04 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45]:33342 "EHLO fed1rmmtao101.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754281AbZEHP5D (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 11:57:03 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090508155703.UZJO17670.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Fri, 8 May 2009 11:57:03 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id p3x21b0044aMwMQ043x2VH; Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:02 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=QCkDTQBM-eUA:10 a=Od5LeTB_ssUA:10 a=ADGUV1-a64TrHUo3f6AA:9 a=4SdqE8GFSdDp53-3IBq69WpsPrcA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: (Eyvind Bernhardsen's message of "Fri\, 8 May 2009 14\:34\:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eyvind Bernhardsen writes: > I read it as a request for pull/merge --ff-only (based on "abort if > the workdir is dirty or is not a fast-forward update"). This feature > has been implemented twice, but never included: Interesting. Do you mean twice they were both found lacking, substandard, useless, uninteresting, buggy, incorrect, or all of the above? Or was it just somebody simply forgot to apply a perfect patchset twice?