From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07481F4B4 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235873AbhDEUrS (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:47:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57659 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235691AbhDEUrR (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:47:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AF5B0EA4; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:47:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=qidp0KJWL3MNLKG+bdRZ3NZ2P6E=; b=Ja79eX EOray+YWA9wmVXImu0JSfYYEsg8UnixdRYkeNS5HnMzDDHnqb01MMJecg/5vLM4q n5mXhDtcUy56uu/OPRsPeeTXxl65/V3gNhgK+UJ7dWE+TBY/9FRg+l05+iLoYsQV DNso28nGgBkxtNFR0hzXf2Lai4t7KntY5C+VA= 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=liUIUPhwZxzMDQy2cl2NEWCqwduspwbd 07r1lexjQW7lX+wZWs4GMgJ6HCtaRP+BHwMCbB0m+SJRQJfBi4kgno9uClwRJ757 IQYoa2AXQto4JMH17yREw96pEKtZCwTzYcQ1NV07htaU0DpgI4aDvPO4sqiBfjnp 43mz+6qMnT0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A827B0EA3; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:47:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E20E4B0EA2; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:47:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Tom Saeger Cc: Derrick Stolee , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: should git maintenance prefetch be taught to honor remote.fetch refspec? References: <3bfd9a88-10f9-df71-bf96-f9c5654e48eb@gmail.com> <20210402182716.trbaflsjcvouff2y@brm-x62-17.us.oracle.com> <41dc2961-7ba5-a882-3416-45631e2cbb33@gmail.com> <20210405203832.x275fqoinfsw5gik@dhcp-10-154-153-195.vpn.oracle.com> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 13:47:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20210405203832.x275fqoinfsw5gik@dhcp-10-154-153-195.vpn.oracle.com> (Tom Saeger's message of "Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:38:32 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 176B6E04-9650-11EB-AB2C-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Tom Saeger writes: > $ git config --local --get-regexp "pr-924" > remote.pr-924.url https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git > remote.pr-924.fetch +refs/tags/pr-924/derrickstolee/maintenance/refspec-v1 > > Seems legal, fetch even works Yes. For a ref that is one-shot use (like PR tags), this does not make much sense, but [remote "submaintainer1"] url = ... repository of submaintainer #1 ... fetch = master tagopts = --no-tags is a reasonable thing to have for those who regularly work with submaintainer(s) of their project. They'd do $ git pull submaintainer1 to accept the work their submaintainers have done.