Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] remote: write correct fetch spec when renaming remote 'remote'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> It is somewhat bothering that we do not say "we didn't do any magic" here
> when we did not move the tracking branch specifications, but that is not a
> new problem, so I am OK with this change.

If I understand you correctly, this is the same concern that Jeff had
and that I tried to address in patch 3/2.

> I however suspect that you would want to keep the record of what you
> changed here, so that the renaming of actual refs done in [PATCH 2/2] is
> limited to those that you updated the specifications for, no?

Sorry, I don't think I really understand. Are you worried that we
might rename too many refs, i.e. unrelated ones? We match exactly the
same pattern both when updating refspecs and when renaming refs. Of
course, we can never be certain that a ref "refs/remotes/origin/foo"
is really related to the remote called "origin". The user could have
simply created the ref manually. Is that what you are getting at?


Martin
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]