From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:19 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfvwcqyug.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1371640304-26019-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1371640304-26019-4-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <7v38sdzx8o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk3lpwkt6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vd2rgtwl3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Ramkumar Ramachandra" , "Git List" To: "Philip Oakley" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 20 23:03:30 2013 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 1Upm0t-0003BX-1E for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:03:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758013Ab3FTVDX (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:03:23 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:56234 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757940Ab3FTVDW (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:03:22 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ED829DD9; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:03:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Nzp4GETaiEMpGnPrKqXWyFORU0E=; b=JyEGfm PdaYi9NRbqltjs/szvbCc5nGwgd40ZJcTHG2wqhvG6AhNkL+A529CC2VxaRycti3 B+0ArO7jMvTexr4suvWHsA7HgC+uZH6J82UGgrv2tLpEqFGlmLoc4GTolcwD97Du Qi+qTt0Q6oGALBRUWuAIRm5yTNUL7zD0qF6bY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Th7OGBU2DB0GYD3Mm2X6oQuy3KWPv/C3 wOZ8xKO7C8GA0bgBmXHXOR+msStWg9pk1bOdMkgYaQsvlQnC6wcGsO/IDeDNW7+A vSX6drZyqmFclDFxqvZgF3tf9CgdGM5uYBk9YOASaCxpqgUpoRgV5poMJrE1Fb56 Z9F1rUGmci0= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB35029DD8; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [50.161.4.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0602529DD0; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:03:20 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Philip Oakley's message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:49:57 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D69AB93E-D9EC-11E2-BE2B-80EC6777888E-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Philip Oakley" writes: > From: "Junio C Hamano" > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM >> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Double negation confused my parser. 'push' and 'pull' should be >>>> kept symmetrical in central workflows? >>> >>> They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and >>> intended: >>> the safety net is not to "ensure that the push and pull are >>> symmetrical" (i.e. among other things, error out if >>> branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather "ensure that the push and >>> pull are never asymmetrical". >> >> Hmmmm.... >> >> not to "ensure that the push and pull are symmetrical" >> rather "ensure that the push and pull are never asymmetrical". >> >> They still talk the same thing to me. What am I missing? >> >> Am I being clueless, or is there something else going on? > > I think it is a case of the user having explicitly set push=Africa and > pull=Europe which can't be a setting for simple symmetry. Yeah but then that is not a discussion about central workflow. I can understand "In a central workflow push and pull should be symmetrical." I can also, with a bit of double-negation brain twisting, understand "In a central workflow, push and pull should not be asymmetrical." But when I suggest to avoid double-negation, I was told that these two statements mean different things, and the original should not be rewritten to avoid double-negation, which is where my brain stopped and asked for help.