+ if (rs[i].matching &&
+ (matching_refs == -1 || rs[i].force)) {
+ matching_refs = i;
+ continue;
+ }
It is probably better to document that you would force if you have both
"+:" and ":" for the same remote, even though I am not sure if allowing
that (instead of diagnosing it as an error) is the right thing to do.
I screwed up here. I was sure that something like
push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*
push = +refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*
would also force, instead the first one wins. I'm ok with just removing
the "|| rs[i].force" part.
Is it an error to have both ":" and "some:other" refspecs for the same
remote? If so who makes the check?
No, it is not an error. For example, it allows to have a
push = refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*
push = :
refspec, which pushes all tags but only pushes branches if there is a
matching ref on the other side. I don't have a use for this, but it
made sense to support the general case.
Otherwise this patch seems to be very cleanly done. Especially I like how
the updated match_refs() looks.
Thanks. Should I resubmit?
Paolo
--
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
