From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: auto-merge after push? Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:30:44 -0700 Message-ID: <7vocrplhbv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090511142326.GA18260@redhat.com> <20090511201705.GA21045@redhat.com> <20090611104020.GA12036@redhat.com> <20090711203831.GA10875@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 12 23:31:06 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 1MQ6dT-0008QN-R7 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:31:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752144AbZGLVa5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:30:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751637AbZGLVa4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:30:56 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:55874 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751316AbZGLVaz (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:30:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E401327E79; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3014E27E78; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:30:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun\, 12 Jul 2009 04\:42\:03 +0200 \(CEST\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 475CB464-6F2B-11DE-8FE8-424D1A496417-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Well, I use it myself, what more can I say? It's rather hard to justify a feature that is available to the general public with documentation that only says "we tell you what happens in terms of low-level commands when you use this feature, we warn you that this has its own set of possible complications, but we do not specify what they are, nor how to recover from them. You should know what you are doing if you choose to use it". That is not very helpful. If this _were_ implemented as a sample hook on the receiving end, with ample comments that the users can read to undersand the issues before deciding to install it on their repositories, it might have been an easier sell. If Dscho is short on time, perhaps somebody else can improve upon the documentation part of the patch? It's a long time ago that I took a look at the patch text itself but I had a recorrection that the code itself was reasonable (and it is a well known fact that I tend not to notice bugs in Dscho's code so it is not a very useful thing for me to go back to look at the code again now when I am short on brain cycles).