From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:57:36 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <46a038f90802072044u3329fd33w575c689cba2917ee@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90802081427k6ee94cfagbc02533538e75b49@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Git Mailing List To: Martin Langhoff X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 08 23:58:35 2008 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 1JNcB1-0004YR-5F for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:58:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751189AbYBHW5d (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:57:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752551AbYBHW5c (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:57:32 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59396 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751031AbYBHW5b (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:57:31 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Feb 2008 22:57:29 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp025) with SMTP; 08 Feb 2008 23:57:29 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/7WPcizLj7WLBPQHFBshCB7717QgpR87/RfR5ClF BgkuqQxFiPfPDS X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <46a038f90802081427k6ee94cfagbc02533538e75b49@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Feb 9, 2008 12:50 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > The problem is that the local side cannot tell > > The local side has the remote refs if the client has fetched recently, > so it might be able to tell in some cases. Not with authority (things > may have changed on the server side...) but the client might be able to > say something less alarming. But if it was not fetched recently? I think that what you suggest is too tricky (IOW too prone to break). > > Another way to "solve" this issue, of course, is to use the remote > > layout. I did the switchover myself some time ago; it was hard at > > first, since I was so used to just check out the branches I just > > fetched. But in the long run the distinction between local and > > tracking branches made life much easier for me. > > What do you mean with "the remote layout"? I am using "remotes"+tracking > branches as far as I can tell... I mean keeping most branches purely as tracking branches. Whenever you are done with one branch, you delete the local branch. Ciao, Dscho