Re: What should "git fetch origin +next" should do?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 17, 2011, 18:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vipnnmppx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20111017171041.GA12837@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I think the exact same confusion exists. I told git to update 'next' > from origin, but it didn't touch refs/remotes/origin/next.
Except that you didn't tell git to *update* the remote tracking branch for 'next'; you merely told it to fetch 'next' at the remote.
> ... But I suspect that is not how many git users think of it.
I am inclined to agree that it might be the case; see my other message in this thread.
> We've discussed this before, of course: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127163/focus=127215
Yes, you brought up the "remote state as of the time I told git to record it is a precious piece of information" issue, and I share the reasoning, hence I am somewhat torn.
We might be better off biting the bullet and do the "rewrite a command line colon-less refspec using a matching configured refspec iff exists" and defer the history of remote tracking branches to its reflog in the longer term.