From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:22:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push
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:

> 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