>From Junio C Hamano, Thu 16 Apr 2020 at 15:18:47 (-0700) : > Thanks. In any case, they already are in 'next', so please update > incrementally. In an early part of the development cycle of a topic, we > tend to avoid building a topic from a horribly broken state and fix > things up with pile of "oops, that was wrong, and here is a band-aid" > patches, but once the patches become reviewable shape, the remaining > "issues" tend to be the ones that are not found without careful reviewing > and thinking things through, and it often is easier for later history > inspection if the fixes are separate. I am a bit confused because in next you picked both the original patch fixing the fallback to default %(push:remoteref) behavior, and the new RFC patch fixing triangular workflow (which has not yet been reviewed). But your argument seems to indicate you would have preferred two separate topics. That's indeed why the patch I sent today drops the triangular workflow patch for now. I think this is my fault, I should have sent the RFC patches fixing the triangular workflow which you picked (along with the original patch reviewed by Jeff) in a separate thread, so there were no risk of confusion (which was increased by the fact that my cover letter for this indicated version 4 while the patches were actually version 6). The triangular workflow patch is not quite correct in the sense that it does not handle (yet) all cases, but on the other hand you could argue that this is indeed better than the current code which is always wrong in the triangular case. Sorry I did not catch this sooner :-( -- Damien
