From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20080630053302.GA23786@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vhccfiksy.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vod6k6zg4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v4p7xwsfp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3anb19n7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwskjazql.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk5ggipuw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vej6l3lp7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vod5kd3im.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080630033034.GB18930@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vwsk74hgr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 30 07:34:07 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KDC1d-000815-2M for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:34:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752395AbYF3FdH (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752344AbYF3FdG (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:06 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3179 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752307AbYF3FdF (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 25264 invoked by uid 111); 30 Jun 2008 05:33:03 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:03 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:33:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vwsk74hgr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:31:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Where do we want to take this? The conversation went something like: > > > > me: here's a patch where we hint about "remote prune" > > you: why not just fix the refs, it's no worse than a rewind > > me: we kill reflogs, so it is different than a rewind > > you: oh, right > > > > So I'm not sure if that was "Oh, right, it's not a good idea to remove > > the conflicting ref" or "Oh, right, but it's probably still fine." > > It is "Oh right, it is Ok. Let's cook it in 'next', have it in 'master' > and then backmerge to 'maint'". Sorry if I'm being slow, but what is "it" here? The "warning" patch I sent, or a to-be-posted patch that deletes the conflicting ref? -Peff