Re: [PATCH] push: Learn to set up branch tracking with '--track'

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 2, 2009, 13:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20090202131611.GB8487@sigio.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901301804030.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 06:05:30PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > I think the right thing to do is:
> > 
> >   1. factor out "generic" routines from send-pack, including status
> >      output formatting and tracking ref updating
> > 
> >   2. refactor http-push to use those routines, bringing it in line with
> >      send-pack
> > 
> >   3. add --track support in the same generic way, and hook it from both
> >      transports
> 
> Now we're thinking along the same lines!

OK, good.

> > I can try to work on this, but I'm not excited about major surgery to 
> > http-push, which I don't have a working test setup for.
> 
> You don't have an apache installed?

No, though "apt-get install apache" is easy enough. I was more concerned about wading through the mess of apache configuration to turn on webdave support. But that is just my empty grumbling and complaining; it's not a real stumbling block to doing this patch.

And when I wrote that, I was fully intending to pick up this topic and work on the steps outlined above.

_But_.

It looks like the consensus is to add a branch.master config section even when cloning an empty repo. And that should address my concern in the 99% of cases where people use the default "master" setup. Which kind of takes away the main use case for this topic.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to put effort into it now. The http-push cleanups might be nice for http-push users, but I don't remember even seeing a single user request or complaint about it. So I am not too keen to go cleaning up code that _I_ don't care about, and that I am not sure anyone _else_ even cares about.

-Peff