Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:31:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > 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'". > > Sorry if I'm being slow, but what is "it" here? The "warning" patch I > sent, or a to-be-posted patch that deletes the conflicting ref? Sorry, my fingers outpaced my brain and gave you gibberish. Oh right, we should hint about "remote prune" and stop there, at least for now, as it is not nice to just delete the refs and lose their reflogs without user's consent. -- 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
