On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it > > really means "stale". > If "stale" can be proven cheaply, I think it would be a very > good change to introduce [rejected] vs [stale]. I think there is still one problem with that: you are not splitting the cases into "rejected" and "stale". You are splitting them into "rejected, or we didn't have enough information to determine staleness" and "definitely stale"[1]. So in the cases that it works perfectly, it may be a useful distinction; but it might end up confusing people when the same situation produces different results depending on what has been fetched locally. -Peff [1]: Actually, you can further split into "definitely rejected", "definitely stale", and "undetermined" but I don't think that is being proposed. - 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
