From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Allow update hooks to update refs on their own. Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:16:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7vlk8csetl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vr6i8sfsa.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071202212224.GA22117@midwinter.com> <20071203021333.GC8322@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steven Grimm , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 03 03:16:50 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 1Iz0rZ-0007FE-Q1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:16:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751462AbXLCCQ3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:16:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751408AbXLCCQ3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:16:29 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:60606 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750838AbXLCCQ3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:16:29 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923742EF; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:16:49 -0500 (EST) 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 sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D5F9C548; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:16:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071203021333.GC8322@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:13:33 -0500") 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: Jeff King writes: > ..., but an > "ok, but btw I changed your commit" status from receive-pack seems like > it would be useful, for two reasons: > > - it can be displayed differently, so the user is reminded to do a > fetch afterwards > - we can avoid updating the tracking ref, which makes it less likely > to result in a non-fast forward fetch next time. For example, > consider: > > 1. The remote master and my origin/master are at A. > 2. I make a commit B on top of A. > 3. I push B to remote, who rewrites it to B' on top of A. At the > same time, I move my origin/master to B. > 4. I fetch, and get non-ff going from B to B'. > > If I had never written anything to my origin/master, it would be a > fast forward. And obviously git handles it just fine, but it is more > useful to the user during the next fetch to see A..B rather than > B'...B. Sensible argument. I stand corrected.