Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:14:35PM CEST, I got a letter
where Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Hi,


> Naming the remote HEAD differently than the local HEAD is just *wrong*
> when you want to push back to them.

But you might not know that in advance. That's one of they key points of
the distributed systems, after all - when you are cloning, you needn't
know in advance that you will want to do local commits, and don't need
upstream approval. You also might not know in advance that you will want
to push them back. Sure, distributed systems are more complicated. If
you don't like complicated things, there's always RCS. ;-)

> The only sane way if you have to have different local and remote HEADs
> that I can think of, would be to allow only the current local active HEAD
> to be pushed to a certain remote HEAD (preferably identified by a file in
> .git/branches).

Well, but (if I understand you correctly) that was always the _point_.
It's what I was talking about all the time. :-)

                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to