Re: 'upstream' branches.

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2007, 08:39 UTC
Message-ID: <81b0412b0705070139v49f045d2j3929b38846e20120@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtzup6pzl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 5/7/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

> >
> > Maybe we should not fail in the case the remote repo is older then
> > local, but just to try to fast-forward local reference after a fetch
> > and fail only if the fast-forward fails?

...

>
> Something like this untested patch should be sufficient if we
> want to go this route, but I am not convinced yet that this is
> the right thing to do.  ...

Now, after I thought about that a bit more (and after your explanation about David being silly), I think I was kind of silly as well.

The idea looks a bit dangerous (because of the local and remote can divert from each other). If any, the reference mapping syntax should clearly reveal that, more like

    "TRY-FAST-FORWARD-MERGE ref1:ref2"

instead of that hideous minus. And come to think about that, I'd still prefer to do that manually, as a real merge (I cannot know in advance _when_ the repos divert, and which one of source repos will divert, to entrust the operation an unattended process, and I have get-fetch in cron files sometimes), so count me out as a user of that feature.