Hi, On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:28:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Something like the patch below (which is obviously missing all of the > > > infrastructure for doing this optionally, but is meant to illustrate > > > what I'm talking about). > > > > Except that you miss http:// and rsync:// protocols. Those were the > > reasons I did not touch send-pack. > > You didn't comment on the part of my email where I said exactly that, > but that I think this is still the right path forward. > > Pushing through those protocols is sorely in need of update (actually, > I thought rsync was all but dead at this point). But http push is > missing the update of tracking refs, the usual status output (it still > has the "Maybe you are not up-to-date and need to pull first?" message > that was removed from send-pack a year and a half ago), and who knows > what other tweaks made to do_send_pack (which it appears to have been > copy-and-pasted from in 2006) in the last few years. > > So either we don't care about http-push being consistent with send-pack, > and it is OK to have this feature in one but not the other. Or we do, > and we really need to clean up the current divergence. I do not see how your patch to send-pack makes that divergence any better, or for that matter, keeps it as bad as it is. In other words, if you want to give the other protocols at least a _chance_ to catch up, you definitely need the support for push --track in builtin-push.c or at least in transport.c. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
