From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: use of temporary refs in resolve Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:07:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <7v3bplwmzg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vfytkdcgm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v1x53zuyv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 09 11:09:49 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2Q5m-0000vi-30 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:08:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932458AbVHIJII (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 05:08:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932468AbVHIJII (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 05:08:08 -0400 Received: from fw-nat.cambridge.arm.com ([193.131.176.54]:52855 "EHLO ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932458AbVHIJII (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 05:08:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.1.69.144]) by ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:07:57 +0100 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7v1x53zuyv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:48:24 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2005 09:07:57.0262 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5638EE0:01C59CC1] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano wrote: > If you are happy then I should not complain ;-), and I am > certainly not complaining, but I still have this feeling that I > do not get what you are getting at. You can change it to > directly use pull without intermediate fetch, in order to cope > with what? I shouldn't have said anything :-). StGIT implements a pull command which pops all the patches from the stack, pulls the latest remote changes and pushes the patches back. I was lazy and I implemented the pulling stage by simply calling git-fetch-script and advancing the base of the stack to the value in FETCH_HEAD. I didn't have any special reason for this and I could have used git-pull-script instead and not rely on the presence of FETCH_HEAD. I don't have any preference here. > Could you explain how you currently do things, and > what changes I will be making would break the way you currently > do things please? If you plan to implement multiple values in FETCH_HEAD, StGIT won't be able to use this since it doesn't do any merging for the base of the stack. As I said above, this is not a problem and I was probably wrong when decided to use git-fetch-script directly and not git-pull-script. Please let me know if you need more info. -- Catalin