>> Jeff, Junio >> >> Could you, please, advise if there is any resolution on the patch? > > I do agree with Jeff that what his patch tried to do back in August last > year was introducing backward compatibility and potentially breaking > workflows of existing users by updating refs in an unexpected ways. > > However, as I discussed in > > Subject: Re: origin/branchname and tracking branch pointing to different commits? > Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:32:09 -0800 > Message-ID: <7v7hrtzbau.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I have a slight suspicion that such an "unexpected ref update" is not a > big issue anymore. So in principle, I think it is fine to change the > behaviour of "git fetch $there $these_explicit_refs" to additionally > follow the configured remote tracking ref globbing patterns. > > Because > > (1) the old patch was never tested in a production context (I don't think > it even hit 'pu'); > > (2) I offhand do not know how much the codebase changed in the area that > would affect the assumptions the patch made back then; and > > (3) we will be in feature freeze for 1.7.2 anyway; > > I would rather not be the one who is forward-porting the patch myself > if I can avoid it, however. > > I could queue a version of the patch (with updates if necessary) to 'pu', > but not much more than that right now. > > Thank you, Junio, for the update. Eugene -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html