On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > Related, but not identical, is the problem illustrated in > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/49888 > > > > > > IMHO there is a bug. IIUC git push first looks for common ref names on > > > the local and remote side (yes, refs/remotes are excluded since > > > v1.5.3-rc0~9, but the underlying problem is still there). Then it > > > pushes them. But here, something seems to have gone wrong: > > > refs/remotes/origin/HEAD is a symref. And the corresponding ref is > > > updated. Should git-push not just _not_ update symrefs? > > > > I believe this actually have nothing to do with git-push; it's actually > > git-receive-pack and maybe git-send-pack. Probably git-receive-pack > > shouldn't list symrefs at all, or should somehow report them as links so > > that they can be compared as links. The only refs that git-push itself > > updates are tracking refs on the local side for refs on the remote side > > which were updated. In the report, the reporter had (obviously) not > > configured any local tracking refs for the remote's tracking refs. > > Sorry, I think I did not make myself clear. The updates refs were _local_ > refs. And they _were_ symrefs. No, no local refs were updated. This would have given the message "Also local refs/remotes/origin/HEAD", which wasn't there. What was updated was tracking refs on the remote (which were created as local tracking refs when somebody was running git commands local to the repository which, for the failing command, was remote). The logic for updating local refs on a push was not used at all in this case, according to the output in the message you linked to. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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
