From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:17:55 GMT Subject: Re: Tree tags again.. Message-ID: <7vu0i5qlsc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds writes: > Junio, maybe there should be some test-case for this: > > error: Object 5dc01c595e6c6ec9ccda4f6f69c131c0dd945f8c is a tree, not a commit > error: remote ref 'refs/tags/v2.6.11' is not a strict subset of local ref 'refs/tags/v2.6.11'. I assume this is syncing two linux-2.6 repo which both have the same refs/tags/v2.6.11 (tree tag). Sorry, in send_pack(), up-to-date check should be made first before ref_newer() check. My mistake. A more interesting question is what to do if they are indeed different trees. More realistically, you may decide to retroactively create a commit that wraps the same v2.6.11 tree, perhaps grafting it in front of the current 2.6.12-rcX based history, and replace 'refs/tags/v2.6.11' with a tag to that commit. What should happen? I do not have a good answer to that. From the end-user point of view, we _could_ treat tags differently from heads in that we always omit the ref_newer() check, but from the machinery point of view, I think the plumbing should just ask the user to use the --force when such a tag is involved. ------------ diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c --- a/send-pack.c +++ b/send-pack.c @@ -173,6 +173,10 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, in char old_hex[60], *new_hex; if (!ref->peer_ref) continue; + if (!memcmp(ref->old_sha1, ref->peer_ref->new_sha1, 20)) { + fprintf(stderr, "'%s': up-to-date\n", ref->name); + continue; + } if (!is_zero_sha1(ref->old_sha1)) { if (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1)) { error("remote '%s' object %s does not " @@ -188,10 +192,6 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, in continue; } } - if (!memcmp(ref->old_sha1, ref->peer_ref->new_sha1, 20)) { - fprintf(stderr, "'%s': up-to-date\n", ref->name); - continue; - } memcpy(ref->new_sha1, ref->peer_ref->new_sha1, 20); if (is_zero_sha1(ref->new_sha1)) { error("cannot happen anymore");