Re: [RFC/PATCH] Add fetch.updateHead option

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2020, 01:53 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2yi2v8ghoQ7ZsuxnFU66Hps1DRn3a1ytqBOqS2+pzLsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq3613tuwy.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 6:28 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > Thanks for working on this. Regardless of whether we change the default
> > behavior, this seems like an obvious improvement (and I do think it
> > makes sense to eventually change the default; I'd even be OK switching
> > it to "missing" in the near term).
>
> I agree that "missing" would be an easy thing to take, and I do not
> mind seeing it made the default in the near term.  It won't break
> existing expectations too much, and can even be seen as a bugfix for
> the current behaviour by making "init && fetch" a step closer to
> "clone".  Beyond that to modify what the end user already has is a
> much harder sell.  For some it may be an improvement, but for others
> it would be a breaking change.

Changing the default to "missing" breaks a lot of tests. I already have the fixes for the tests, but this can be seen as an indication that the expectations of users would change.

I never knew of this $remote/HEAD feature, and searching forums some people seem perplexed by its existence and ask how to remove it.

So, if the "missing" behavior is the one we are targeting (which I argue we should), we probably need a warning before doing the flip, so that users become aware of the feature and are not surprised by a sudden $remote/HEAD popping (or repopping) seemingly out of nowhere.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras