From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Sean Subject: Re: git bug? + question Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <7v4pthmew1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061102224549.499610d1.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061103203610.GB7585@spearce.org> <7vejsjxvtw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:33:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce , Miles Bader , Karl =?ISO-8859-1?B?SGFzc2Vsc3Ry9m0=?= Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org X-Originating-IP: [65.93.43.81] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Original-Message-Id: <20061104103325.bfb5e33e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <7vejsjxvtw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2006 15:33:28.0186 (UTC) FILETIME=[933575A0:01C70026] Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgNWf-0003pc-VH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:33:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965511AbWKDPd3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:33:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965513AbWKDPd3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:33:29 -0500 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp04.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.164]:12157 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP04.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965511AbWKDPd2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:33:28 -0500 Received: from linux1.attic.local ([65.93.43.81]) by BAYC1-PASMTP04.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:33:27 -0800 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgMaL-0007HN-JA; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:33:25 -0500 To: Junio C Hamano Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:03:39 -0800 Junio C Hamano wrote: > There is no "get it right most of the time" that would apply to > every workflow. We should just admit that no default layout and > configuration would suit everybody's needs. What we should do > is to try to capture a handful useful patterns and make it easy > for people to apply those canned patterns. Consider it admitted ;o) But there is no need to have just a single configuration that suits everybody. For instance, nobody is saying to do away with the current default in favor of use-separate-remotes. That is why someone saying "Nak" to a feature where all branches are checked out locally on clone is "rash". Because it _is_ valuable to some workflows. There is no reason Git could not support it. If it gets in the way of some workflows, then we just make it a configuration option. However, I don't feel strongly about this particular option, if you notice in my email I merely suggested it for discussion. But by the same token, Git should _better_ support Shawn's example workflow where currently Git makes him delete a bunch of branches and edit the remotes/origin file every time after cloning. It would be rash of me to send out a Nak for such an improvement just because I don't need that feature. All that remains is coming to some consensus on which set of options should be enabled for new Git users. Once someone is up to speed, they can enable whichever options support their workflow. But once they've enabled those options, Git should do it's best to support that workflow without a lot of manual intervention most of the time. That's what the options I was suggesting would do for some workflows.