On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 22:29 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 06:21:58PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > Hi,
> Hi,
> > Just pulled linux-2.6.git, and got this:
> > 
> > ----
> > New branch: 3a6fd752a50af92765853879f4a11cc0cfcd0320
> > Tracked branch, applying changes...
> > Merging 4d78b6c78ae6d87e4c1c8072f42efa716f04afb9 -> 
> > 3a6fd752a50af92765853879f4a11cc0cfcd0320
> >         to a2755a80f40e5794ddc20e00f781af9d6320fafb...
> > 
> > Enter commit message, terminated by ctrl-D on a separate line:
> > Merge with 3a6fd752a50af92765853879f4a11cc0cfcd0320
> > ----
> > 
> > Weird thing was that I made no changes.
> did you compensate for the renamed hashes? Didn't you before update from
> some very old git-pasky version?
> Actually, did you do that git init _after_ the unsuccessful pull, or
> before?

I re-pulled it from scratch after the sha1 changes, so not that.  Just
the next pull that went wonky.

> > Digging a bit deeper, I saw that .git/HEAD was a symlink
> > to .git/heads/master, and the tracked branch was 'origin'.  Due to the
> > fact that Linus only have a .git/heads/master on his rsync, and this
> > thus updated to the new sha1, but the 'origin' (and tracked) head is
> > still pointing to an older sha1 caused this confusion.
> Duh. The remote branch always grabs the HEAD over there; you don't need
> to care about the various branches over there, and you really do not
> *want* to care. Actually I might add some ^branchname to the rsync URL,
> to be able to refer to particular branches inside of the repository.

Well, I just did a quick peek.  I thought it just changed the local head
to the sha1 of the remote, and then updated the local files - haven't
yet looked at gitmerge.sh.

> > I replicated the linux tree via:
> > 
> > ----
> > git init URL
> > ----
> > 
> > So I had a look at gitinit.sh, which first creates the .git/heads/master
> > and symlinks HEAD to it, then on seeing a URL was supplied, creates
> > a .git/heads/origin, track it, but do *not* change the .git/HEAD
> > symlink ... Is this intended?  I see also that gittrack.sh do not update
> > the HEAD symlink ...  Is this also intended?
> Yes.
> You never work directly on the remote branch. Ever. That's what this
> tracking stuff is for; you set up a local branch which follows the
> remote one.

Ok, but for some weird reason it wanted to commit the merge between
remote and local.

> Otherwise, you fork to two trees, one is remote branch, second is local
> branch, and you do git pull remotebranch in the second. You are in
> trouble now. Also, if you do some local commit on the remote branch,
> what would happen? This kind of stuff is why I decided that you just
> cannot work on remote branches directly.
> > The last option however brings a problem or two.  First, how do you do
> > the multi-head thing?  Maybe add a command 'git lsheads' (and while at
> > it, also add 'git lstags'?)?  Secondly, if there was more than one head,
> Perhaps it would be useful to have some "command classes" (with at least
> cg-*-(add|ls|rm)), like:
>       cg-branch-ls
>       cg-remote-rm
>       cg-tag-add

Might make things more sane.

> > the local copy needs to be checked out ... don't know if 'git cancel' is
> > the logical thing the user will think to do ('git clone' perhaps?) ...
> I don't know what do you mean here.

Don't worry, no biggy.

Martin Schlemmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to