From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:34:18 GMT
Subject: Re: FETCH_HEAD question
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:
>> 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.