From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: How to check new commit availability without full fetch? Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:01:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <7v8wc5itlc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Leo Razoumov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 11 03:01:41 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NU9bB-00087w-6s for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:01:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753300Ab0AKCBV (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:01:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753412Ab0AKCBS (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:01:18 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:23608 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753300Ab0AKCBP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:01:15 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-MH-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KW200F018A2U080@VL-MH-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:01:14 -0500 (EST) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Leo Razoumov wrote: > On 2010-01-10, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > A feel good factor is in play? IOW, "I am short of time, so I won't be > > > able to really afford to 'git pull' and test the result of re-integrating > > > my changes to what happened on the other end. If I can learn that there > > > is nothing happening over there, then I won't have to do anything and know > > > that I am up to date." > > > > > > Just do a fetch then. If the fetch progress display looks like if it is > > going to take a while then just interrupt it and go home. If the fetch > > looks trivial then just merge it. In any case, the "feel good" factor > > can't be that great by only knowing if the remote has changed or not. > > > > Forced interruption is not such a good idea. I would favor a > non-destructive way to monitor availability of remote commits. You still don't answer my question though. Again, _why_ do you need to know about remote commit availability without fetching them? > BTW, pull and push are in a way symmetric operations. Is there any > deep reason why push supports --dry-run but pull/fetch does not?? Pushing involves resource usage on your own machine while pulling/fetching involves the remote machine. Your choice to "waste" CPU cycles on your own machine is not the same as having anybody do the same on a central server. Nicolas