From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:58:13 GMT
Subject: PUSH_HEAD, was Re: FETCH_HEAD question
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902172357450.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <76718490902170934u5e2c17ffl7599ddeb5ee59812@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Jay Soffian wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Unless dwim_ref() is updated to handle FETCH_HEAD specially, and
> >> return not the first SHA1, but the one not marked "not-for-merge".
> >> Then the UI would at least be consistent, but this would not be
> >> backward compatible.
> >
> > You cannot fix parsing FETCH_HEAD as a ref (and neither will you be able
> > to do with PUSH_HEAD), as it can contain _more_ than one SHA-1s.  This
> > still holds true when ignoring the not-for-merge lines, as an octopus is
> > a quite real possibility.
> 
> An even better argument against than it not being backward compatible. :-)
> 
> And there is no PUSH_HEAD.

Heh, that's why I used the future tense :-)

Ciao,
Dscho