From: Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:05:16 GMT
Subject: Re: origin/branchname and tracking branch pointing to different commits?
Message-ID: <AANLkTik61QMnAn7rEoIOHlCMAuWgpdXWvmGVLCTn9YD1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vocet8ws2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

>> Jeff, Junio
>>
>> Could you, please, advise if there is any resolution on the patch?
>
> I do agree with Jeff that what his patch tried to do back in August last
> year was introducing backward compatibility and potentially breaking
> workflows of existing users by updating refs in an unexpected ways.
>
> However, as I discussed in
>
>    Subject: Re: origin/branchname and tracking branch pointing to different  commits?
>    Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:32:09 -0800
>    Message-ID: <7v7hrtzbau.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
>
> I have a slight suspicion that such an "unexpected ref update" is not a
> big issue anymore.  So in principle, I think it is fine to change the
> behaviour of "git fetch $there $these_explicit_refs" to additionally
> follow the configured remote tracking ref globbing patterns.
>
> Because
>
>  (1) the old patch was never tested in a production context (I don't think
>     it even hit 'pu');
>
>  (2) I offhand do not know how much the codebase changed in the area that
>     would affect the assumptions the patch made back then; and
>
>  (3) we will be in feature freeze for 1.7.2 anyway;
>
> I would rather not be the one who is forward-porting the patch myself
> if I can avoid it, however.
>
> I could queue a version of the patch (with updates if necessary) to 'pu',
> but not much more than that right now.
>
>

Thank you, Junio, for the update.

Eugene