From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:55:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fast-export: make sure refs are updated properly
Message-ID: <20121102145555.GA14774@elie.Belkin>
In-Reply-To: <20121102131255.GB2598@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

> If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is
> that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the
> full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this
> discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a
> more full fix. Is that accurate?
>
> Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I
> understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It
> sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough
> to make forward progress".

Patch 1, 2, and 4 are good modulo their descriptions.  They should
work fine without patch 3.

Patch 3 is a regression in comprehensibility.  I think we can do
better.  Maybe all it would take is a less confusing description, and
tweaks to the code (to loop over revs->cmdline instead of
revs->pending) could come on top.