Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 17:16 +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > > To me, it's more along the lines of "let git help me not make the > > mistake of hacking on a six-week old codebase when I've explicitly asked > > it to merge these and those remote tracking branches into these and > > those local branches". Not updating those branches when there *are* > > changes on them is something users can understand and will probably also > > appreciate, but the reason for not allowing even fast-forwards escape me. > > I'd love this behavior, FWIW. > > The "branches should not track their origin by default" seems suited > only to Linux kernel maintainers who frequently pull from many different > people, not to "random hacker who wants to keep track of a project he > doesn't maintain" :) The problem I see here is not that the kernel folks would suffer, but that the behaviour would not be easy to explain. Which is a sure way to not only give people rope, but put their heads in the noose. Not having clear semantics is prone to lead to misunderstandings, and mistakes. IOW while I trust you when you say it would make things easier for you, I am quite certain it would make things much harder for a substantial part of the rest of humanity. Ciao, Dscho - 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
