From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="X4tSGqxi" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20EE6D5A for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:19:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8412C1AD0EC; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 20:19:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=LnsQfjRFBONJapPb/svrt5g1yCIhMrCaAULFR7 LQTfI=; b=X4tSGqxi1ijWoHlGZEzTkVc0sY+EkIVihIxq0+aCn8ALRjI7saihFe +b+bfgDcLkKVgrtVsKEBDgBWwMsAzXHsqDvQLCZdgf0o5RweaRpezMaiVNu8dG0C mds8J962jNj6oq1/d8QxkLiFZL7mtuegPZld48vfZzO/1D3aZwFMs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8B21AD0EB; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 20:19:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC30E1AD0EA; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 20:19:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Willem Verstraeten , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] checkout: forbid "-B " from touching a branch used elsewhere In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:09:38 -0500") References: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 10:19:23 +0900 Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8136F3EA-8A67-11EE-8FEE-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Eric Sunshine writes: > Thanks for digging up this link. Upon reading the problem report, I > felt certain that we had seen this issue reported previously and that > patches had been proposed, but I was unable to find the conversation > (despite having taken part in it). I am surprised that I did not remember that old discussion at all, and I am doubly surprised that I still do not, even though I clearly recognise my writing in the thread. > I agree, also, that this two-patch series is simple to digest. OK.