From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Shenkin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify that '--tags' fetches tags only Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 22:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1314997486-29996-1-git-send-email-anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> <1316649176-32352-1-git-send-email-anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> <119711285.RuumktFLOq@hyperion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 02 00:07:14 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RA7iD-0005SB-Gt for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:07:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751990Ab1JAWHJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:07:09 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52893 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751527Ab1JAWHH (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:07:07 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RA7i4-0005Qh-Pn for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:07:04 +0200 Received: from h-67-101-25-249.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net ([67.101.25.249]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:07:04 +0200 Received: from shenkin by h-67-101-25-249.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:07:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 67.101.25.249 (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/535.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/14.0.835.186 Safari/535.1) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Peter Shenkin gmail.com> writes: > But it leaves unexplained and undocumented the fact > that the user's specification of an *additional* refspec is > observed if the additional refspec is given on the > command line but ignored if the additional refspec is > given in the config file. I have to take this back. It makes sense that a refspec on the cmdline overrides one in the config file. I understand the behavior now, and Michael's suggestion of a --default to add the refspec in the config file to the cmdline is IMO a good one. 'Nuff said. (By me, anyway....) Thanks for your help and patience, everyone. -P.