From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge: indicate remote tracking branches in merge message Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:40:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20090809074035.GA4778@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090809065936.GA24112@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vab29a1fr.fsf@alter.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 Sun Aug 09 09:40:47 2009 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 1Ma31J-0000DT-DD for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:40:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751242AbZHIHkh (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:40:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751194AbZHIHkh (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:40:37 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:41655 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751177AbZHIHkh (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:40:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 2471 invoked by uid 107); 9 Aug 2009 07:42:50 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:42:50 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:40:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vab29a1fr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 12:31:04AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I somewhat suspect that the patch was not applied because it also lacked > necessary adjustments to tests. With this patch, I think the tests would > fail. Yeah, see my follow-up patch. > Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to do. But I am unsure about the > implementation. > > Shouldn't it instead feed what it got from the end user to the dwim > machinery, and make sure it dwims into refs/remotes/ hierarchy? I'm not sure that is all that different in practice than what is happening now. Mainly I did it the way I did so that I didn't touch the code path for detecting local branches. But assuming they are functionally identical, I think your patch is much more readable. > In other words, like this. Note that it would be much clearer to see > what's needed, if you want to extend it to refs/tags hierarchy ;-) I'm not sure adding "tag foo" will actually work, as it still has to make it through the bit where we parse FETCH_HEAD. I'm not sure if it would get mutilated to "commit foo" by that code or not. -Peff