On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:53:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yes. The concept isn't that hard, but the question was one of whether it > > would break some obscure workflows. But I don't remember all of the > > details; I think I gave some examples in past threads. > > I think the one Thomas lists in $gmane/165758 is the one. The one I was thinking of is: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127215 > The primary reason why I do not think this is relevant these days is > because the original premise "remote tracking branches keep what the > last 'git fetch' observed" has already been broken for a long time. > The users are better off thinking that the remote tracking branches > can be updated any time (not just the last 'git fetch') when Git > observes (or could observe) the state of the remote without being > told explicitly with today's "pretend as if we fetched immediately > after we push" behaviour. Yeah, that is certainly my mental model, and how "git push" works (and how the patch I linked to above works). I actually don't care that much either way, which is why I haven't polished up that patch. I'd be happy if somebody worked on it, but I don't know if it is all that interesting a student project. It is not much development, and mostly about digging in the history of what tracking branches mean, and convincing everybody it's a good change. Which is hard for any newcomer to the community to do as a first project. -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