Re: git bug/feature request

From: gapon <gapon007@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2007, 12:50 UTC
Message-ID: <200711271350.38468.gapon007@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fih0cd$d31$1@ger.gmane.org>

Dne úterý 27 listopadu 2007 Jakub Narebski napsal(a):

> [Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gapon <gapon007@gmail.com>,
>  Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr>]
>
> Could you _please_ do not toppost?

sure, no problem ;)

Show 21 quoted lines

>
> gapon wrote:
> > Dne úterý 27 listopadu 2007 Benoit Sigoure napsal(a):
> >> On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:27 AM, gapon wrote:
> >> > * yes, i know that this scenario is "incorrect" but... it's
> >> > possible and
> >> > therefore i think it should be somehow handled - i tried a similar
> >> > one with
> >> > hg and bzr and i like their behaviour more
> >>
> >> Would you mind describing the behavior of hg and bzr in this case?
>
> [...]
>
> > bzr:
> > while pushing, bzr tries to merge into the current working copy (of A)
> > -> all changes are applied or conflicts occure
>
> That's wrong, wrong, WRONG! What to do in the case of conflicts?
> Whan you pull, you can resolve them, as they are on your local side,
> but when you push you cannot do that.

i agree - i didn't say that it's correct behaviour - i just said that i like it more than git's one

Show 11 quoted lines

>
> > hg:
> > while pushing, neither merge nor info message, but new head (branch) is
> > created in repo A - so then in A you can commit your changes but it's
> > different head (repo A has more heads, use hg heads to list them)
> > btw i filed and enhancement for hg, to let user know that there are more
> > heads in the repo (you have to use hg log or hg heads to discover that
> > someone else has pushed into your repo and hg merge to merge them)
>
> That is also wrong: how do you decide name of new branch then, and
> woundn't this lead to proliferation of branches?

i don't agree that it's wrong - in the hg log all you see is that the commit from repo B has different parent - that's all if hg status (or similar) printed some info about this situation it would be enough i would say - but just my opinion/feeling of course

>
> You can do the same with git, but you have to specify new branch name
> in repo A, or just configure remote in repo B.

how can i do it in repo A? i know how to configure repo B but i didn't know that i can do it for repo B (or better for all "B" repos)

>
> BTW. how do you want for user A (which might be not at terminal, or might
> be not logged in, or might use some application using terminal, or might
> use multiple [virtual] terminals, or...) to be informed?

quite easily i would say - while doing git status or git commit or so - it doesn't matter if one uses terminal or gui - just let user know that something has changed in his repo as i wrote earlier - it's confusing (at least for me) that git marks any files as changed (i haven't changed any file) and more, it adds them to the index