Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] remote-hg: update bookmarks when pulling

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 14, 2013, 22:49 UTC
Message-ID: <7v38tpfa7u.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0u0WPNneM-GoiqCkWTC-CT_Xa2z3on=smRiFJdd9ffeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> The reason for the "only regression" period is to avoid more
> regressions. If you show me how any of the fixes I sent in this series
> could potentially cause a regression,

I already said that "You can see these patches are so trivially correct" is not a valid argument. The original patches would also have been looked correct when they were sent to the list. Things take time and actual use by the users to mature.

Show 6 quoted lines

>> You cannot be both.  Which is it?
>
> I marked the patch that fix a regression as such, I marked the patches
> that are obvious fixes with no possibility of regressions as such, and
> I marked the trivial cleanups with no possibility of regressions as
> such.

I think you mean 6/10 by "the patch that fix a regression", but if that is the case, please send only the regression fix that cleanly apply to the tip of 'master', without any other dependencies, with a proper description of what breaks and how it fixes.

We know you can do better than "certain" and "might".

> In certain situations we might end up pushing garbage revisions (e.g. in
> a rebase), and the patches to deal with that haven't been merged yet.
> 
> So let's disable forced pushes by default.

Thanks.