From: Uwe Kleine-König Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:01:13 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-clone: describe --mirror more verbose Message-ID: <20101005070113.GE11737@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <7vlj6d988o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Hi Junio, On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:29:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael J Gruber writes: > > >> I choosed to write "overwritten" instead of "updated" to make it clearer > >> that it makes no sence to push into these branches from a different > >> source. Should this be noted more explicit? > > > > "update" may be more Git lingo but I think either is fine. "overwritten" > > makes it clearer this is not a repo to do development in... > > In a repository with remote.origin.mirror set to true, "git fetch origin" > does not seem to prune a ref that has been removed from the origin. I > think that is a design bug, albeit a minor one ("git fetch -p origin" can > fix, but "-p" should not be necessary). A "mirror"'s purpose is to, ehh, > mirror a remote so that local people can share it as a nearby copy. > > A wording that also implies this automatic deletion of a stale ref would > be nice; "overwritten" does not exactly sound like that, though. So you intend to change git fetch origin to remove stale refs, right? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |