Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] doc: command line interface (cli) dot-repository dwimmery

> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> 
> wrote:
>> From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:21 PM
>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Nieder 
>>>>> <jrnieder@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another trick is to use "git push":
>>>>>>         git push . $production_sha1:refs/heads/master
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It all falls out naturally from the "Git is distributed and no
>>>> repository is special" principle.  I think that word "trick" merely
>>>> refers to "those who do not realize that the local repository is 
>>>> not
>>>> all that special and merely is _a_ repository just like anybody
>>>> else's may not realize they can do this", nothing more.
>>>
>>> Nobody cares.
>>
>> The value of the trick was acknowledged as now being in use
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/223572
>
> How is that more useful than 'git branch -f master $sha1'?

>
>> Not sure if that was the caring you were commenting on.
>
> My point is that nobody uses '.' as a remote. Yes, you can find the
> occasional esoteric person in the Git mailing list that might find
> some weird command useful, but that's the fringe user-base.
>
>>> You say it's "mistaken", but you are not the arbiter of truth; the
>>> fact that you say it's so doesn't make it so. It's just rhetoric.
>>>
>>> You haven't shown that it's indeed mistaken.
>>
>>
>> An aside: in some domains (e.g. Human Error taxonomy) a 'mistake' is 
>> a
>> planned action which later turns out to not be the action that would 
>> now
>> have, in retrospect, been chosen. The intent was good, but is later 
>> classed
>> (within the taxonomy) as a 'mistake'. (It is not related to 'blame').
>
> Yeah, that's what a mistake is, in my mind.
>
>> If I understand the extended thread correctly, the approach moved on 
>> and
>> alternatives were found, so in that sense the intent was good.
>
> No, the approach didn't move on, there are no better alternatives, the
> "intent" is irrelevant, the approach is good, there is no mistake.
>
> Junio simply ignored the fact that he was proven wrong.
>
> I still haven't received a response: which makes more sense?
>
> a)
>
> % git checkout svn-ext
> % git fetch
> From .
> * branch            master     -> FETCH_HEAD
> # oops
> % git fetch git-svn
> % git log ..FETCH_HEAD
> % git merge FETCH_HEAD
>
> b)
>
> % git checkout svn-ext
> % git fetch
> From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git
>    680ed3e..de3a5c6  master     -> origin/master
> # oops
> % git fetch svn-ext
> % git log ..FETCH_HEAD
> % git merge FETCH_HEAD
>
> -- 
> Felipe Contreras
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3162/6344 - Release Date: 
> 05/21/13
>