On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:57, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:53:42PM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > >> > Sure. I'm totally open to the idea of making the non-fast-forward >> > warning more obvious. Suggestions for wording (though I am tempted by >> > "HEY STUPID" above ;) )? >> >> I'm not suggesting all non-fast-forward should issue a bigger warning. >> pu updates daily with a non-fast-forward. That isn't useful. >> >> But if the local reflog hints that this reference almost never does a >> non-fast-forward, and then it does, that should be a big warning. > > Right. What I mean is, what should the bigger warning look like? Its a bikeshed. I refuse to paint bikesheds. :-) > Also, you suggested caching to avoid looking through the whole reflog > each time. I think you could probably just sample the last 10 or so > reflog entries to get an idea. Good point. 10 or so last records might be representative of the branch's recent behavior, which is all that matters to the user who wants this warning. -- Shawn. -- 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