Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixing volatile HEAD in push.default = current

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

 



Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> There's still a lot to think about.

Is there?  I do not think "volatile" is particularly a good
description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete
branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in
principle.

I haven't picked them up, and I won't be picking them up today, as I
suspect this series may conflict with the pre-2.0 preparation and
2.0 transition patches and I may end up having to fix conflicts
unnecessarily (resolving is eventually needed before 2.0 happens,
but resolving them, or even having to worry about the possibility
that I may have to do so, do not have to steal time from me today).

Thanks.

> [3/3] is the big itch: [1/2] and [2/2] are just setup patches.
>
> Ramkumar Ramachandra (3):
>   push: factor out the detached HEAD error message
>   push: fail early with detached HEAD and current
>   push: don't push the volatile HEAD with current
>
>  builtin/push.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--
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]