On Monday 14 February 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > So if nobody disagree, I would have no problem with dropping the
> > leading "~" from the refspec, thus disabling auto-following
> > (tracking all tags explicitly instead).
>
> I am not sure what you mean by this. I think we agree that it would
> be Ok if you cannot add "~" in front to cause automatic following
> when tracking tags in separate namespaces using
> "refs/tags/*:refs/remotes/origin/tags/*".
>
> But are you saying:
>
> (1) There is no other change than that; or
>
> (2) Even when not using such a refspec i.e. using the traditional
> "tags live in a single global namespace", automatic following feature
> will be disabled;
>
> I would be moderately unhappy if the latter.
No, I'm saying the former.
For the foreseeable future (i.e. long after v1.8.0 is out) we will still
have to understand and support the traditional "tags are implicitly
auto-followed" and "tags live in a single global namespace" concepts
(aka. (a) below). For new-style remotes I propose that all refspecs be
explicit, and that auto-follow is disabled (aka. (b) below).
But if you try to specify a new-style remote with all tags in a single
global namespace, you will NOT get tag autofollowing (aka. (c) below)
(a): The current default config, also supported for the foreseeable
future (tag refspec is implicit, auto-following is enabled):
[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
(b): The proposed default config, using separate per-remote namespaces
for tags (tag refspec is explicit, auto-following is disabled):
[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/heads/*
fetch = +refs/tags/*:refs/remotes/origin/tags/*
(c): A customized version of the proposed config, using a single global
namespace for tags (tag refspec is explicit, auto-following is
disabled):
[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/(heads/)*
fetch = refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*
(Note that if we cannot reliably detect the difference between old-style
(implicit) and new-style (explicit) remotes, we will likely have to add
a boolean flag, e.g. "remote.origin.implicitTagFollowing".)
> > ... However, what I've seen at $dayjob is
> > that more inexperienced users will often push right after
> > committing, and at that time they're still very much in the
> > "working-on-one-branch" state of mind (as opposed to the
> > "administering-multiple-branches" state of mind),...
>
> Then "current" mode is a good setting for them, I would presume.
Arguably in some workflows, 'tracking' may be a more suitable default
(i.e. safer for newbies) than 'current', but in practice this shouldn't
matter much (local branch names usually correspond to remote branch
names). Also, 'tracking' is more complicated when the branch originates
locally, and must be created on the server ("git push -u origin
<branch>" vs. "git push"). So I agree that 'current' is the best
default.
...Johan
Offtopic PS: Given that we're leaning towards using 'tracking' to
describe the relationship between remote-tracking branches
(refs/remotes/*) and remote branches, and 'upstream' to describe the
relationship between a local branch and the remote branch it
follows/merges (on 'git pull'), wouldn't
push.default == "upstream"
be more descriptive than
push.default == "tracking"
?
--
Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.herland.net
--
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