From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:00:29 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] builtin-remote: add set-head verb Message-ID: <7vab8p4w1u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20090214002253.GA7769@coredump.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:09:01AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> The entire series looks sane from a very cursory look; especially the >> earlier ones are obviously good. > > I also think it looks good. You raised a few style points below which I > thought were sensible and won't bother repeating. > >> Hmph, what does "-a" stand for? I would have expected to see "-u" that >> stands for "update" here. > > It was immediately obvious to me as "auto" (I think I even suggested > "-a" in another thread, so maybe that is why it seems so sensible to > me). Yeah, latest round has --auto in it. Thanks, Jay. > I thought it was obvious that you would do: > > git remote set-head master > > in the same way that you would do: > > git remote add -m master $remote $url > > But I suppose clarifying it doesn't hurt. I do not care too deeply if an explicit request to "set-head --auto" screws up and sets a HEAD that was pointing at the right branch to another branch because the command is not taught to give preference to the branch HEAD originally points at, so I do not think I have any more issues with the series for now, even though I may notice things later. I have this series queued to private topic branch but it still does not pass tests (breaks #8 and #18 of t5505 at least) by itself; the previous round was no better. I think it is just the matter of updating the expected output in the tests, but I didn't look further.