Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > No objections. Does it fix a failed test? If not, should we add a test > to record this side effect fix? No, it was just "I tried this and it did not work" reported elsewhere, and it is not v1.7.9 regression. Having seen a failure by a real user, having a test would be a good idea to protect the fix from regressing. I actually wish that the commit 9e58504 (clone: --branch=<branch> always means refs/heads/<branch>, 2012-01-16) wasn't taken hostage to the earlier changes that add new feature (addition of --single-branch and delaying of the cloning before checking the remote HEAD); which would have been an easier sell without violating the usual "no new features to maintenance track". And the thing is, I do not find this grave enough an issue that deserves a separate implementation of a fix to be queued to maintenance tracks. > --mirror implies --bare in cmd_clone() if I read it correctly. Yeah, what was I thinking... feeling stupid. Thanks. -- 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