From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <8fe92b430710081355i7d3dbaa2q9a8939b55d7ca7dc@mail.gmail.com> <1192827476.4522.93.camel@cacharro.xalalinux.org> <4719B655.90204@op5.se> <8fe92b430710201606i47e85b24k17abd819bf0d353b@mail.gmail.com> <471AFD07.4040606@op5.se> <471C586A.9030900@op5.se> <471C9B13.9080603@op5.se> <471CB443.9070606@op5.se> <471CBEB1.2030008@op5.se> <1193081785.4522.181.camel@cacharro.xalalinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Andreas Ericsson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Federico Mena Quintero X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 23 01:21:43 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 1Ik6ab-0000ly-UP for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:21:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751612AbXJVXV3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:21:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751475AbXJVXV3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:21:29 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34271 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751394AbXJVXV2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:21:28 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2007 23:21:26 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO openvpn-client) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 23 Oct 2007 01:21:26 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/cn1JXTRPcB5Gqb3hiRne4B9/YQAYXeOMW6NtlXJ hWcQk93Y7B8voE X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <1193081785.4522.181.camel@cacharro.xalalinux.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 Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 17:16 +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > > To me, it's more along the lines of "let git help me not make the > > mistake of hacking on a six-week old codebase when I've explicitly asked > > it to merge these and those remote tracking branches into these and > > those local branches". Not updating those branches when there *are* > > changes on them is something users can understand and will probably also > > appreciate, but the reason for not allowing even fast-forwards escape me. > > I'd love this behavior, FWIW. > > The "branches should not track their origin by default" seems suited > only to Linux kernel maintainers who frequently pull from many different > people, not to "random hacker who wants to keep track of a project he > doesn't maintain" :) The problem I see here is not that the kernel folks would suffer, but that the behaviour would not be easy to explain. Which is a sure way to not only give people rope, but put their heads in the noose. Not having clear semantics is prone to lead to misunderstandings, and mistakes. IOW while I trust you when you say it would make things easier for you, I am quite certain it would make things much harder for a substantial part of the rest of humanity. Ciao, Dscho