From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105CB20899 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753091AbdHTPv7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:51:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53142 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753064AbdHTPv6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:51:58 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB12499084; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=n417mh2w0EfG1EPYVSOkxSCt2L8=; b=OuyLvo JjivFNTrlHmjxQBUyO6+6iLmdFas3Bq1ckdFV4XfDmQKwuQYoIg3w6h0OrxbdvIh pMoK8J8RwJd4LUU86P5oyPNt40JEJN/S+jLb5gXp7KBH2yrXWQvfHvRPait+5LGZ OSZOGMYu1D8L8a0sl3jOx+TtuALFtb6ki9Hi8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=n/uhjFSKn0UPLr9GK40IPv04BtHif/HO EzYYZ7g6gKxpxglzEGdQUpe7z3+eoDQ2busw1Ht1SgD8SQXuoNvXfaGufdHao/+p G0A14lB6spTfwax+Gg04dg3KqoF1Cb28Ns+8p64H1rhX60rI9fSPaBHQLLv8B8nl CDL+US8+KTQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BE099083; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24EC499082; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Kevin Daudt , "Carlsson\, Magnus" , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: git fetch with refspec does not include tags? References: <1502960406180.9006@arris.com> <1502960572292.1402@arris.com> <20170817092853.hteuzni5lxia4ejf@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170817202257.GC3839@alpha.vpn.ikke.info> <20170817204312.GD3839@alpha.vpn.ikke.info> <20170820074728.4dawjlnaufjdf4j5@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170820075001.gmsxeh3fh4f2topg@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 08:51:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170820075001.gmsxeh3fh4f2topg@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 20 Aug 2017 03:50:02 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7BE10948-85BF-11E7-944F-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 03:47:28AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> Yeah, I don't think we want to go back to the original behavior. I agree >> that it is partially to blame for the inconsistency that started this >> thread, but I think on balance it has saved much more confusion than it >> has started. And we can address that inconsistency with better tag rules >> (like the "autofollow if we wrote any real refs" thing). >> >> I don't have a patch for that yet, so if anybody feels like taking a >> look, it would be much appreciated. > > Also: I don't think we've seen a patch yet for documenting the current > auto-follow behavior. Even if we don't make a behavior change, let's > not forget to improve that, which should be much less work. :) Thanks for two thoughtful follow-ups.