Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > But, I did not expect these to fetch tags:
> >
> > git fetch <repo> <branch>:<branch>
> > git pull <repo> <branch>:<branch>
>
> Sigh... that matches my expectation.
>
> Did we break it when we overhauled "git fetch", or was this an
> independent "improvement" that happened long before that?
I think during the git-fetch builtin marathon this got implemented,
but probably as a feature masquerading as a bug fix and we didn't
notice the regression.
The theory behind the expectation here is if we are fetching the
object to a tracking ref then we probably want to watch it in
the future. If we want to watch it and tag following was allowed,
and we are missing a tag, we should follow the tag if we have the
object graph under the tag complete.
Now what should:
git pull <repo> <branch1>:<branch1> <branch2>
do, especially if <branch2> is referring to an object that you don't
already have, that object also isn't reachable through <branch1>,
but <branch2>^0 is the target of a tag <tag2> that you don't have?
Should we get the tag anyway?
Personally I'd expect us to skip the tag pointing at <branch2>^0,
based upon my description above, but I have a feeling we'd follow
it anyway, as tag following was enabled and at least one item in
the fetchspec provided asked for storage to a tracking ref and we
have <tag2>^{} complete.
Of course even if we didn't follow that tag right away a future:
git fetch <repo> <branch1>:<branch1>
might cause us to get the tag anyway, as <branch2>^0 is now reachable
through HEAD, due to the implicit git-merge we ran above. ;-)
--
Shawn.
-
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
