From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Problems setting up bare repository (git 1.5.3.3) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:02:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vejgeqxd1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <87bqbisae6.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87641psey8.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vwsu5l6j8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vfy0tl4fd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Sean , Carl Worth , Barry Fishman , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 23:03:56 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 1Icou9-0005bW-4G for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:03:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754431AbXJBVDg (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:03:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754434AbXJBVDg (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:03:36 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45054 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754426AbXJBVDf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:03:35 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Oct 2007 21:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 02 Oct 2007 23:03:33 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/QLrJACEjQUjSWCNRC+NwC5eDVpPzxGdSIFJJe+o C6Xmy2KJYXaYQm X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vfy0tl4fd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The discussion between Johannes and I was about picking what default is > _reasonable_; Johannes made it sound like branches are norm and tags are > oddball. I was merely pointing out that it won't be so cut-and-dried. Actually, I had Carl Worth in mind when I asked the (rhetorical) question what is meant by "master:blub". And I think Carl agrees that he would expect it to create a new branch. However, as I hope I made clear that I do not think that a DWIMery would do good here. IOW I vote for keeping the existing behaviour (otherwise you'd have seen a patch from me, too). Ciao, Dscho