Re: FETCH_HEAD question
- From
Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 17, 2009, 17:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <76718490902170934u5e2c17ffl7599ddeb5ee59812@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902171821190.6185@intel-tinevez-2-302>
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
>> Unless dwim_ref() is updated to handle FETCH_HEAD specially, and >> return not the first SHA1, but the one not marked "not-for-merge". >> Then the UI would at least be consistent, but this would not be >> backward compatible. > > You cannot fix parsing FETCH_HEAD as a ref (and neither will you be able > to do with PUSH_HEAD), as it can contain _more_ than one SHA-1s. This > still holds true when ignoring the not-for-merge lines, as an octopus is > a quite real possibility.
An even better argument against than it not being backward compatible. :-)
And there is no PUSH_HEAD.
j.