From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:45:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] t5800: document some non-functional parts of remote helpers
Message-ID: <20110609004555.GD19715@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vzklrzvfb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:43:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 04:19:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > The third test demonstrates a bug in git's side of the
> >> > helper code when the upstream has added new refs without us.
> >> 
> >> without us knowing, you mean?
> >
> > I guess it depends what you mean by knowing. The bug is shown when the
> > remote has a ref that we don't; we try to feed the name of that ref to
> > fast-export, which of course doesn't work, because we don't have
> > anything by that name.
> >
> > So in that sense, no, we don't know about the ref. But it is not about
> > us knowing about the remote having the ref; the problem is that we _do_
> > know that the remote has that ref, and assume we have a matching one.
> 
> Ok, I think I understood what the sentence wanted to say ("the upstream
> added new refs. We do not have them yet", right?); it was just I found the
> phrase "... without us" didn't sit well there to my ears.

Fair enough. I think a better wording would be "...the upstream has refs
that we do not have locally", which is more accurate and more clear.

-Peff