From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: git pull fails Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:57:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20060329005700.GC27631@pasky.or.cz> References: <20060328162831.af1bd4c0.tihirvon@gmail.com> <20060328141140.GC3113@linux-mips.org> <20060328173827.3d64d91e.tihirvon@gmail.com> <200603281700.17233.astralstorm@o2.pl> <20060328224807.GC27689@pasky.or.cz> <20060329031136.e0389c00.tihirvon@gmail.com> <20060329002415.GG27689@pasky.or.cz> <7vu09igk1t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 29 02:57:06 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOOza-0004Mu-Fx for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:56:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750730AbWC2A44 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:56:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750731AbWC2A4z (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:56:55 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:31681 "EHLO machine.or.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750730AbWC2A4z (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:56:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 11708 invoked by uid 2001); 29 Mar 2006 02:57:00 +0200 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vu09igk1t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dear diary, on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:40:30AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano said that... > Petr Baudis writes: > > > If your current branch would really be a remote branch and you simply > > git-fetched, your HEAD would change but not your working tree, and at > > that moment things would become very confusing. Cogito would start > > showing nonsensical stuff for cg-status and cg-diff (as well as > > git-diff-tree HEAD output), but your index would at least still be > > correct so I'm not sure how much attention do tools like git-diff pay to > > it, the level of messup would be proportional to that. > > People want to leave tracking branches checked out, especially > when they are not developers but are "update to the latest and > compile the bleeding edge" types. Support for that mode of > operation was invented long time ago and git-pull knows about > it, and the idea was ported to git-cvsimport recently. Why can't such people just have two branches, _especially_ if they are the "update to the latest and compile the bleeding edge" types? (Therefore well not likely to be familiar with the Git branching model at all.) I mean, sure, it's Core Git so the extra flexibility is nice. But I now wonder, can you think of any plausible workflow where having one branch instead of two would be an advantage? Waah, cg-log git-fetch.sh, /update-head just showed me the change in git-fetch-script from last August, with no extra work for me. The big rename barrier annoyances finally gone forever! -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think I have forgotten this before.