From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:06:42 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <46a038f90802072044u3329fd33w575c689cba2917ee@mail.gmail.com> <20080209030046.GA10470@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vtzkihkx5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <46a038f90802090350rc4780d1ted60c03b9abf1fc0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Steffen Prohaska , Git Mailing List To: Martin Langhoff X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 09 14:07:13 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 1JNpQG-0000ev-G3 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:07:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754448AbYBINGj (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:06:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754444AbYBINGj (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:06:39 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:37246 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754405AbYBINGi (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:06:38 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Feb 2008 13:06:37 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 09 Feb 2008 14:06:37 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+joPkDoF6jGDMsQUa/2BGazm8vOzEkK4aNLuaRgo hrqiS48b/ykypS X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <46a038f90802090350rc4780d1ted60c03b9abf1fc0@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 Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote: > And I don't completely follow how bad the impact of > auto-fast-forwarding local tracking branches on a merge. If it's a > fast-forward, my "local state" wasn't that exciting to begin with ;-) Not necessarily. Maybe you wanted to work on it, kept your local branch as a reminder. Maybe even reset --hard to a known-bad commit. The thing is: local is local is local. If you muddy the clear distinctions, you will make semantics much harder to grasp. Having said that, you _could_ introduce a command line option "--ff-local-branches", which would keep the semantics clean. Ciao, Dscho