On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:17:14PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is > > that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the > > full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this > > discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a > > more full fix. Is that accurate? > > From my understanding, yes. > > > Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I > > understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It > > sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough > > to make forward progress". > > I appreciate that stance very much. The patch Sverre and I proposed was > also an incomplete fix (although I suspect it would fix the issue you > pointed out above), so I agree with the "perfect is the enemy of the good" > approach, obviously. Thanks for the response. > May I just ask to include a summary of that rationale into the commit > message rather than relying on people having internet access and knowing > where to look? Adding the following to the commit message would be good > enough for me: > > Note that > > $ git branch foo master~1 > $ git fast-export foo master~1..master > > still does not update the "foo" ref, but a partial fix is better > than no fix. Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. Felipe, I notice that you sent out a big "fast-export improvements" series. Does that supersede this? -Peff -- 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