From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fast-export: make sure refs are updated properly Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:19:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20121102151955.GA24622@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1351623987-21012-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1351623987-21012-5-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20121031003721.GV15167@elie.Belkin> <20121102131255.GB2598@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Sverre Rabbelier , Elijah Newren To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 02 16:20:16 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TUJ2d-0001jm-LX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:20:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757153Ab2KBPT6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:19:58 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:54616 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755802Ab2KBPT5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:19:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 5660 invoked by uid 107); 2 Nov 2012 15:20:41 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:20:41 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:19:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:17:14PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is > > that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the > > full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this > > discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a > > more full fix. Is that accurate? > > From my understanding, yes. > > > Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I > > understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It > > sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough > > to make forward progress". > > I appreciate that stance very much. The patch Sverre and I proposed was > also an incomplete fix (although I suspect it would fix the issue you > pointed out above), so I agree with the "perfect is the enemy of the good" > approach, obviously. Thanks for the response. > May I just ask to include a summary of that rationale into the commit > message rather than relying on people having internet access and knowing > where to look? Adding the following to the commit message would be good > enough for me: > > Note that > > $ git branch foo master~1 > $ git fast-export foo master~1..master > > still does not update the "foo" ref, but a partial fix is better > than no fix. Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. Felipe, I notice that you sent out a big "fast-export improvements" series. Does that supersede this? -Peff