Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)?

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jul 29, 2005, 07:48 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmzo6jbme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050729070628.GA24895@pasky.ji.cz>

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

> Aha, so it seems our problem is hopefully only in terminology, great.
>
> So, what do you mean by "clone" here? And what command should I use for
> pushing then?

Notice I never used the word "clone" in what I said.

What I mean by "a semantically equivalent two repositories, potentially one being a strict subset of the other" is you can pull head A from one or head A from the other and can get the same result (although one may and the other may not have head B). And naturally you use send-pack for pushing.

If I "clone" from repository A to create a repository B, I would never "push back" from B to A. Instead I would ask a person who owns A to "pull from B". My impression is the patch flow in the kernel circle works like that (although I have never been in that circle).

Now, A may happen to be on my home machine and B may happen be on my notebook, meaning the owner of A and B are both myself. But even in that case I would still work by "pulling from A" when I am on B, and "pulling from B" when I am on A. In other words, "pulling" is the only patch flow mechanism I would use. Pushing is only for publication and I treat it as just a GIT-aware rsync/mirror, nothing more. I have a feeling that your workflow is different and you plan to use both push and pull for normal patch flows. This distinction is probably where the disagreement comes from.

And I strongly suspect that the primary reason that I "simply do not get it" after reading your messages is because my mental model is strongly molded into what Linus taught us. I have to unlearn things...