From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:11:25 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <7v7ihd7ee1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080210101756.GB26568@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080210122321.GA31009@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vzltwavf9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <76718490802200720w4dd89dc1lf7b19d546d3bfd00@mail.gmail.com> <20080221223549.GA26266@dervierte> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Git Mailing List To: Steven Walter X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 22 01:12:27 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 1JSLWa-0002Ol-51 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:12:24 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759888AbYBVALs (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:11:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756476AbYBVALs (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:11:48 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45206 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755333AbYBVALr (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:11:47 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2008 00:11:45 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 22 Feb 2008 01:11:45 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19IJSYx1IBI3W4LV08AX9I9jzbQfKWPr4fq6I+cK7 j5xsTfjSvQ2eVs X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20080221223549.GA26266@dervierte> 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 Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Steven Walter wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:38:31PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > That depends awfully on your definition of "safe". > > > > I, for one, hate the idea already, that I am "safe" when "git push" > > does not do the thing I asked it to, and which it has done for a > > couple of years now without complaint, and which I have gotten used > > to. > > > > And then, there will be a great confusion for me, since I work on 5 > > different machines on an average day, with 5 different git versions, > > and having different config settings. > > Which is worse: pushing more refs than you intended (requiring rewinding > refs on a repository that other people may pull from), or pushing fewer > refs than you intended, requiring you to run the command a second time? Sorry to say, but I find this argumentation lacking. Is it worse to suffer, or is it worse to suffer? We should try to make it _safe_ not "less painful, but still painful nevertheless". Hth, Dscho