Re: [PATCH 7/7] make "git fetch" update all fetch repositories
- From
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 29, 2008, 21:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20080429213323.GA2413@steel.home>
- In-Reply-To
- <48178FD6.90104@gnu.org>
Paolo Bonzini, Tue, Apr 29, 2008 23:15:02 +0200:
Show 10 quoted lines
>>> 2) the patch does not touch refs/heads/* unless you are tweaking your >>> configuration (and quite heavily so). IMHO that's using enough rope >>> that you really ought to know about the reflog and... look for >>> backwards incompatible changes in the release notes! >> >> Since when do you depend on people reading release notes and >> immediately and correctly changing their behaviour? > > I don't, that's why I never expected all patches to go in 1.5.6. >
Oh, the next minor release...
> I sent them together to provide a single coherent series and an aim for > a transition plan -- which I'd prefer to work out with the git > community, who knows the release mechanics much better than I do. Jeff > King's reply to the cover letter is a start towards that; your e-mails
Hmm... Which one do you mean? I cannot find his reply to message-id <cover.1209391614.git.bonzini@gnu.org>
> are also a start towards that, even though I don't think your transition > plan is feasible (also because it would break "git remote update" > completely).
Which part of "warn people in git-fetch" will break "git remote update"? Or what will break after the "git remote add" start setting skipDefaultUpdate?
Show 8 quoted lines
>>> 4) one man's stupidity is another man's... [fill in] In particular, >>> did you understand the rationale for this change? Do you have any >>> alternative ideas? >> >> Do you have a convincing one by now? > > See the (long) cover letter. >
It is not. It seem to propose, instead of fixing existing behaviour, change it incompatibly. And dangerously, I believe.