Re: [RFC/PATCH] Enhance core.logallrefupdates
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 8, 2006, 20:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <egbm6h$7mu$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vr6xiio02.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Come to think of it, it might make sense to change the >>> meaning of "true" to do what this patch does. I do not think >>> of reasons to create missing reflog for tags automatically >>> anyway. >> >> If we change meaning of "true", perhaps (just in case in case) we >> should add "all" value? > > Didn't I just say that I do not think of reasons to do so ;-)? > > Saying "just in case" is not enough. You need to say at least > "this hypothetical workflow which requires to update refs/xxx > and doing automated reflog creation only under refs/heads makes > that workflow less convenient".
If I remember correctly there was example of workflow which did fetch remote heads to local tags. But I'm not sure if this reflog made sense with that workflow.
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git