From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: "Michael K. Edwards" Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:57:00 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87velgs9hx.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87psbos4pb.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <20061115230252.GH24861@spearce.org> <87fycjs5yg.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ry1KPm7R95jaasfymq6nqzlBtJjnEw79cboW+Ve01ogc8LyVyziM/YBj5T96Y2+tQgH21kCJPLso4/haGxJ2MN/d1Cir+O3VRYJF3Hmqy7G3lAdBq+J6lHsA6jJTPnPbDXBBejTgaIscics1DUkTdgqhCysAsirZmBGDN7481UM= In-Reply-To: <87fycjs5yg.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GklU5-0006pD-UR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:57:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162055AbWKPR5E (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:57:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031152AbWKPR5D (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:57:03 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.233]:47740 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031188AbWKPR5B (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:57:01 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s7so668120wxc for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.52.18 with SMTP id z18mr688523agz.1163699820680; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.25.4 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:57:00 -0800 (PST) To: "Carl Worth" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On 11/16/06, Carl Worth wrote: > First, the pull may just fast-forward in which case there's no message > at all. And we've been through that topic enough recently that we all > know that no important information is lost by not doing any separate > recording in that case. > > So you can't turn around and argue that the remote URL information is > suddenly important when it just so happens that it's not a fast > forward. When it's a fast forward, the puller hasn't had to make any judgment calls, so there's no editorial history to record. When it's not, but the puller chooses to retain the result on a persistent branch, that _is_ an editorial decision (even if the result of the auto-merge is clean); I like having that in the history. > > And in a truly distributed situation, "pull" is strictly more powerful > > than a separate "fetch" + separate "merge". > > I don't buy it. In my usage, I have several different remote > repositories I'm interested in tracking, each with any number of > branches. What I really want is an easy command that fetches all of > those branches, (even new ones that I've never heard about---but never > any of their "tracking branches" that wouldn't be of interest to > me). And I want to do that once, to get the online-access-required > part over with and get all the data into my local repository where I > can start working with it. What do you want all of those branches for? They haven't been published to you (that's a human interaction that doesn't go through git), so for all you know they're just upstream experiments, and doing things with them is probably shooting yourself in the foot. I do agree that a robust form of "for b in .git/remotes/*; do git fetch `basename $b`; done" would be a nice bit of porcelain. The entries in .git/remotes would probably need to grow a "Fetch-options:" field so that you could choose whether or not to follow tags, etc. Patch to follow. Cheers,