Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixing volatile HEAD in push.default = current
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 21, 2013, 19:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0m3QP_eE14y8UoJ+HeFzkKM=1nVKAnYJcTrwQMp+Atphg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v38tgno2k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Is there? I do not think "volatile" is particularly a good > description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete > branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in > principle.
Okay. I used "volatile", because push does not lock HEAD when the operation begins, even though it performs a super-late resolution (in the transport-layer); HEAD is not guaranteed to remain invariant in that time. Suggest nicer wording?
Show 6 quoted lines
> I haven't picked them up, and I won't be picking them up today, as I > suspect this series may conflict with the pre-2.0 preparation and > 2.0 transition patches and I may end up having to fix conflicts > unnecessarily (resolving is eventually needed before 2.0 happens, > but resolving them, or even having to worry about the possibility > that I may have to do so, do not have to steal time from me today).
We're at 1.8.3; isn't it a little early to be thinking of 2.0? Is it conflicting with jc/push-2.0-default-to-simple in pu? I should re-send after this topic graduates to master in 2.0?
I have no problems re-sending at a convenient time (provided you tell me how to determine that convenient time), but reviews don't have to wait: it's fresh in my memory now.