Re: [PATCH 1/3] remote: Add warnings about mixin --mirror and other remotes
- From
Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net>
- Date
- Jun 26, 2013, 21:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1372281006.3602.2.camel@localhost>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vmwqge9u9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On zo, 2013-06-23 at 15:33 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net> writes: > > > On zo, 2013-06-23 at 14:22 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net> writes: > >> > >> > Equality for > >> > wildcards is allowed and tested for, so do we really want to 'outlaw' > >> > equality of non-wildcard refspecs? > >> > >> I am not sure what you mean by "equality for wildcards is allowed". > >> Do you mean this pair of remote definition is sane and not warned? > >> > >> [remote "one"] > >> fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/mixed/* > >> > >> [remote "two"] > >> fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/mixed/* > > > > I personally don't consider them very sane and didn't originally support > > that. But this behavior is tested for in t5505-remote.sh test 27, which > > started failing until I stopped warning for equal refspecs. This support > > for "alt remotes" in prune was added by c175a7ad in 2008. The commit > > message for that commit give a plausible reason for using them. > > I actually do not read it that way. What it wanted to do primarily > was to avoid pruning "refs/remotes/alt/*" based on what it observed > at the remote named "alt", when the refs fetched from that remote is > set to update "refs/remotes/origin/*". > > The example in the log message is a special case where two > physically different remotes are actually copies of a single logical > repository, so in that narrow use case, it may be OK, but it is an > unusual thing to do and we should "warn" about it, I think.
Apart from the exactly matching refspecs, does git in any other way treat this as a special case?
> In any case, I've been assuming in this discussion "allow" is to > silently accept, and overlaps are "warned" but not "rejected". So > if you meant by 'outlaw' to die and refuse to run, that is not what > I meant.
Well, 1/3 is a warning on add, 3/3 is a warning and refusing to prune. Should 3/3 do something else instead? Perhaps prompt for confirmation or require some sort of --force?
-- Dennis Kaarsemaker www.kaarsemaker.net