From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:13:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push
Message-ID: <20080210101353.GA26568@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vwspd5z1d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it
> > really means "stale".
> If "stale" can be proven cheaply, I think it would be a very
> good change to introduce [rejected] vs [stale].

I think there is still one problem with that: you are not splitting the
cases into "rejected" and "stale". You are splitting them into
"rejected, or we didn't have enough information to determine staleness"
and "definitely stale"[1]. So in the cases that it works perfectly, it may
be a useful distinction; but it might end up confusing people when the
same situation produces different results depending on what has been
fetched locally.

-Peff

[1]: Actually, you can further split into "definitely rejected",
"definitely stale", and "undetermined" but I don't think that is being
proposed.