Re: git pull for update of netdev fails.

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sep 21, 2006, 09:14 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0609211111540.19042@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <ees6hl$jdv$1@sea.gmane.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> > Dear diary, on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:28:08PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said that...
> 
> >> However, you can tell git that Jeff is being difficult by marking such 
> >> branches individually as being rebased.
> > 
> > This is really a wrong way of describing the problem - I'd say that Git
> > is being difficult here. The point is, the subsystem maintainers need to
> > maintain stacks of patches and rebase against the main kernel branch
> > regularily, and they want to still publish their current state. So it's
> > not really any of them being strange or difficult, but Git being so
> > because it has no seamless support for tracking those branches.
> 
> There was idea around moving remotes configuration to config file to have
> some per branch configureation, including readonly for protecting tracking
> branches, marking default branch for merge with (and which tracking
> branch(es) to merge)...

If you want it, go ahead, propose something.

> ...and that included marking branch _on the server side_ as being rebased,
> i.e. without preserved history. Unfortunately, the discussion petered out
> without changes to git.

Not true. We have the [branch "StrangeCase Sensitive/Name"] syntax as a consequence.

But I agree, nothing came out of the discussion about per-branch settings, maybe because nobody cared enough?

Ciao, Dscho