From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:22:27 +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> <7vwspd5z1d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080210101353.GA26568@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Martin Langhoff , Steffen Prohaska , Git Mailing List To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 10 13:23:01 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 1JOBD3-0000H5-5Q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:23:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754022AbYBJMW1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:22:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753660AbYBJMW1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:22:27 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:41799 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752599AbYBJMW0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:22:26 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2008 12:22:24 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 10 Feb 2008 13:22:24 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/fgZdIX17fRRH1UvpI3Hza9vTXvP70eRPBxyUplx aNw+nBXnbTP6xV X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20080210101353.GA26568@coredump.intra.peff.net> 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, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it > > > really means "stale". > > > > If "stale" can be proven cheaply, I think it would be a very good > > change to introduce [rejected] vs [stale]. > > I think there is still one problem with that: you are not splitting the > cases into "rejected" and "stale". FWIW I think it is perfectly reasonable to say "stale" when you _know_ that it's stale, and "rejected" when you don't know the reason. Ciao, Dscho