Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 01:55:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * jk/maint-fetch-ref-hier (Thu Jun 26 23:59:50 2008 -0400) 1 commit >> + fetch: report local storage errors in status table >> >> When the remote used to have "foo" branch but now has "foo/bar", fetch >> refuses to delete the existing remote tracking branch "foo" to create a >> new remote tracking branch "foo/bar", but the error message was >> confusing. > > Where do we want to take this? The conversation went something like: > > me: here's a patch where we hint about "remote prune" > you: why not just fix the refs, it's no worse than a rewind > me: we kill reflogs, so it is different than a rewind > you: oh, right > > So I'm not sure if that was "Oh, right, it's not a good idea to remove > the conflicting ref" or "Oh, right, but it's probably still fine." It is "Oh right, it is Ok. Let's cook it in 'next', have it in 'master' and then backmerge to 'maint'". -- 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
