Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #08; Tue, 31)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2012, 05:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v8vkbs0g3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8B_nsZnSarbRaBoxviK1xa_PVP0-DbnMiP9HkwzrztfJg@mail.gmail.com>
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> No objections. Does it fix a failed test? If not, should we add a test > to record this side effect fix?
No, it was just "I tried this and it did not work" reported elsewhere, and it is not v1.7.9 regression. Having seen a failure by a real user, having a test would be a good idea to protect the fix from regressing.
I actually wish that the commit 9e58504 (clone: --branch=<branch> always means refs/heads/<branch>, 2012-01-16) wasn't taken hostage to the earlier changes that add new feature (addition of --single-branch and delaying of the cloning before checking the remote HEAD); which would have been an easier sell without violating the usual "no new features to maintenance track". And the thing is, I do not find this grave enough an issue that deserves a separate implementation of a fix to be queued to maintenance tracks.
> --mirror implies --bare in cmd_clone() if I read it correctly.
Yeah, what was I thinking... feeling stupid.
Thanks.