From: Felipe Contreras Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:16:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/15] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v7gp9udsl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> ... >> I would like to understand that that even means. What behavior is >> currently broken? > > I do not know if this is the same as what Peff was referring to, but > I found this message in the discussion thread during my absense. > > From: Johannes Schindelin > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fast-export: make sure refs are updated properly > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:17:14 +0100 (CET) > Message-ID: > > (which is $gmane/208946) that says: > > Note that > > $ git branch foo master~1 > $ git fast-export foo master~1..master > > still does not update the "foo" ref, but a partial fix is better > than no fix. First of all, do we agree that this patch does not change the situation for this command? If so, I don't see why that would be relevant while discussing this patch series. Second, this is what I get: % git log --decorate --oneline foo master~1..master 8c7a786 (tag: v1.8.0, master) Git 1.8.0 Notice that 'foo' is not there? It's not there because we explicitly stated that we didn't want it there. And what do you expect that command to do with 'foo'? To throw a 'reset refs/heads/foo'? To what commit? There is no mark for that commit. 'reset :0'? That doesn't help anybody. No, that command is not broken, it works as expected. Notice the situation would be different with 'git fast-export --import-marks=marks foo master~1..master', because if there's a mark for foo, *now* we can do something about it. This particular patch series doesn't, but the next one does. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras