Re: Minor annoyance with git push
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2008, 12:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802101221310.11591@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080210101353.GA26568@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Jeff King wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it > > > really means "stale". > > > > If "stale" can be proven cheaply, I think it would be a very good > > change to introduce [rejected] vs [stale]. > > I think there is still one problem with that: you are not splitting the > cases into "rejected" and "stale".
FWIW I think it is perfectly reasonable to say "stale" when you _know_ that it's stale, and "rejected" when you don't know the reason.
Ciao, Dscho